Talk:List of restaurant chains in the Philippines

Selection criteria
The article currently has no rather broad and vague inclusion criteria, so I'm assuming we'll list only entries with their own articles (with an exception which I discuss below). See Stand-alone_lists.

The list was a linkfarm, and I tagged it as such. Reformatting these external links as if they are references is inappropriate, and in violation of WP:REFSPAM, WP:NOTLINK, WP:V, WP:OR (especially WP:PSTS), and WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE).

Note that I left the redlink to Savory Chicken which includes a reference to a restaurant review. This reference at least doesn't violate all the policies and guidelines mentioned above. I'd prefer instead that we only include entries with their own article. Alternatively, if a directory (or more than one directories) of Philippine restaurant chains was found and we agreed it was independent and reliable, we could list the chains from that directory, using the directory as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The list is based on the precedent set by List of restaurant chains in the United States. I will look at WP:LSC and apply its contents to this list although I will say that, since the components of this list are supposed to be chains and not just a single restaurant, that already contributes to the likelihood of significance and notability.  Furthermore I have given a directory such as you describe in the External links section.  All the entries included can be verified.  Removal of sources, even if they are primary sources, is unwarranted, given the context of this list article.  I think you should establish reasonable doubt as to their authenticity first before taking such action.  I have asked for opinions on your actions here and at Philippine cuisine at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lambanog (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. Sorry I didn't see you previous attempt to discuss the dispute at RSN.
 * List of restaurant chains in the United States has no such external links, other than the one I recently removed.
 * If you'll look at the editing history of List of restaurant chains in the United States, you'll see it's regularly cleared of redlinks. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The new inclusion criteria is better: "The following is a list of food and restaurant chains closely associated with or in the Philippines. All those listed have multiple branches and are notable enough to appear on Philippine restaurant guides or directories." All we need now is a few directories to use as sources, properly linked.


 * I'll be removing the links to restaurant websites for the previous reasons given, which are uncontested, and because they detract from the goal of sourcing each entry with a directory reference. I've tagged the article as a linkfarm in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ronz, corporate websites are regularly used as sources about themselves. This is specifically allowed in the policy on reliable sources. I think you have a misunderstanding about what a link farm is, if you look at WP:LINKFARM and WP:LINKFARMS, you'll see that it refers to links in the External Links section; links in references are not a link farm. Please restore the links to the corporate websites used as references that you removed, or allow them to stand if someone reintroduces them. Thanks, LK (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links weren't added as sources and they weren't sources. They are of no help meeting our selection criteria. The only thing they accomplish is promote the organizations, which is inappropriate for the reasons I've given.
 * What I will be doing is trimming back the list to only entries that meet the selection criteria. I'm in no rush to do so. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The links that were introduced served as sources—they provided history information confirming existence and branch information. They would qualify even under WP:ELOFFICIAL.  I have not insisted on them being kept solely for stylistic reasons: a cleaner less cluttered look and as a compromise.  However, should any of the items that can be included here be challenged I will have them reinserted.  If you feel this is not a notable topic, nominate it for AfD and let us be done with this discussion once and for all. Lambanog (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ELOFFICIAL only applies to articles about individual organizations.
 * "The links that were introduced served as sources—they provided history information confirming existence and branch information." This is demonstrably untrue. I recommend withdrawing the statement as an error. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A third party has said otherwise. Your actions can be interpreted as disruptive behavior; please desist from any more edits on this article. Lambanog (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote
 * Please "comment on the content, not on the contributor." Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The disagreement unfortunately still remains. I have suggested it on my talk page in response to your comment there but since you may miss it I will repeat it here. Will you agree to have this dispute mediated? Lambanog (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

''Appending talk page discussion. Please continue any discussion here —Lambanog (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)''

(refactored --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I am sorry but the pattern of your edits can leave the purpose of them easily misconstrued. To avoid this would you be willing to have the dispute mediated? Lambanog (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(refactored --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Resolution discussion
Pertinent revision history

15:59, 27 September 2010 Lambanog

01:55, 28 September 2010 Ronz

02:38, 28 September 2010 Lambanog

03:08, 28 September 2010 Ronz

07:23, 28 September 2010 Lawrencekhoo

16:13, 28 September 2010 Ronz

22:39, 28 September 2010 Lambanog

22:53, 28 September 2010 Ronz

15:52, 29 September 2010 Lambanog

16:02, 29 September 2010 Ronz

04:07, 1 October 2010 Lambanog

17:06, 4 October 2010 Ronz

All revisions – Revision history of "List of Philippine restaurant chains"

22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to show here, but I changed the single-edits to diffs for the extra information they provide. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind that we are all here to make a better encyclopedia. What we have here is a good faith disagreement about what should appear on this page. In my opinion and in Lambanog's, links to corporate websites can be included as references to show the existence and size of these restaurant chains. IMO, the relevant noticeboard to resolve this issue is the reliable sources noticeboard. If we post a question about this issue there, does everyone involved agree to abide by the consensus from that noticeboard posting? If not, can we have another suggestion about how to seek help in resolving this issue? LK (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already posted on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Not much discussion there perhaps due to the way Ronz characterized the dispute.  In any event Ronz did get an opinion on the underlying issue at Wikipedia_talk:External_links.  He also got your opinion above on this page.  Even with that I offered mediation as a solution and submitted the dispute to WP:Third Opinion.  However, Ronz claims "mediation is unsuitable for such disputes" and removed the submission before it could be acted upon because it seems he considers you Lawrence a third party making Third Opinion inappropriate.  I find the behavior bewildering if a mutually acceptable resolution is honestly sought.  Seeing no other recourse I have thus reported this as an incident to WP:ANI, but I am willing nonetheless to listen to any compromise or path to one. Lambanog (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lambanog, your postings to Mediation and ANI are premature. I'm sure that we can work things out. Do you and Ronz agree to abide by consensus from a posting to a noticeboard, for example WP:RS/N? Or alternatively consensus from a discussion following a Request for Comments posting? If both of you agree, let's just make such a posting and settle this matter. In the mean time, let's relax, assume good faith of all involved, and keep the discussion on this page. LK (talk)
 * I've already proposed that an RfC would be an appropriate next step. RSN isn't appropriate for the reasons I've already given. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (Personal comment by Lambanog removed --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC) | Comment: Would have preferred a third party done the refactoring but will let stand for now –Lambanog (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC))
 * If you think all that is a bit much, you could just help me in the here and now. I would like the banner Ronz added removed.  I do not see the basis for it since a source is provided.  Anyway, whatever you think is best, thank you Lawrence for attempting to find a resolution to this matter. Lambanog (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A thought occurs to me. Third Opinion is still appropriate.  Ronz's opposition to it is the only hurdle.  Lambanog (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly Third Opinion usually resolves disputes between 2 parties, and counting LK, there's 3 editors. Otherwise, I strongly recommend you don't use talk pages to list out unrelated complaints about another editor. Finally, you're confusing user conduct RfCs and content RfCs, and for that matter, assuming bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LK is largely a third party in this. Ronz's portrayal of him as partial would be more convincing if the current page showed my preferred version without the banner.  Unless LK or another party is willing to take a firmer stand there is little to dissuade an edit war.  But upon consideration you are probably right, the time for WP:3O has passed.  LK's opinion is basically a third opinion already.  (Personal comment by Lambanog removed --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC) | Comment: Would have preferred a third party done the refactoring but will let stand for now –Lambanog (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC))  And good faith is being extended—if an anonymous IP removed perfectly valid sources I do not think this conversation would be taking place.  As for the content RfC, may I ask you or LK to file it if you think it is an effective avenue for resolution?  It would probably be better coming from a neutral party.  Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on your talk page about remembering to assume good faith. PhilKnight (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to assume good faith, but perhaps Ronz can help me along. I have brought this issue to various forums as shown and stated previously.  Those who have expressed comments on the issues involved were either neutral or supportive of my stand.  Lawrencekhoo has been deemed by Ronz as a party in this and has therefore blocked Third Opinion.  Ronz has also said consensus is not a vote and for that reason has reverted my preferred version of the article. Consensus may not be a vote but he has not shown where his support comes from.  If he claims consensus; it is incumbent upon him to show it. Given the circumstances, I do not see how Ronz can plausibly expect his preferred version of the article to stand and not cause some dismay.  I offer this compromise–let it not be said I am unwilling to compromise–I wish my preferred version of the article to stand while this dispute is ongoing and if he wishes, Ronz can pursue an RfC which I will abide by.  By allowing my version to stand unchallenged while the dispute is unresolved our good faith in him can be refreshed.  So Ronz how about it?  If I restore my preferred version of the article will you revert it? Lambanog (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he would, but I just added this page to my watchlist, and if you're talking about adding in corporate links on this page, then I would revert. To me, this isn't an issue of gaining consensus, because adding those links is a clear violation of either WP:RS or WP:EL, depending on whether you add them as references or as external links. As references, they only verify existence--they cannot verify that the restaurant belongs on this page (that it fits the inclusion criteria, whatever that is). And as external links, they're pure spam. As pointed out in the above discussion, WP:ELOFFICIAL applies only to the official home page on the article of that company's homepage. Furthermore, I would argue, per WP:NLIST, that every single item on this page needs a reliable source or its own wikipage (this is a policy I attempt to enforce on any stand-alone list or embedded list I encounter). We need evidence that these restaurant chains are someone notable enough to appear in a list on Wikipedia, because we are not a directory. The lead currently states that all of the restaurants here are notable enough to be in "Philippine restaurant guides or directories," but the only directory listed is not a reliable source--if you look at the page, it explicitly states "Do you own/manage a restaurant? Get listed for FREE!" That clearly indicates no editorial judgment is used in the inclusion on that list--simply self-submission. As such, I would argue that that link shouldn't even be there as it's not even close to a reliable source. I won't start deleting all of the unverified items yet, as I think that would be too bold in the midst of the other content dispute, but it needs to be done eventually in order for this page to comply with policy/guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Qwyrxian, thank you for participating in this discussion. A few points:
 * "Do you own/manage a restaurant? Get listed for FREE!" does not mean there is no editorial oversight or attempt at verification, it only means restaurants can get listed for free. It is a website that relies on the accuracy of its information for its business. If it was of no repute I don't think it would have been allowed this . In any event something like http://www.eyp.ph/ could be added.  Will that suffice?  Or are you going to question that?  If you do I think this issue starts becoming one of WP:Systemic bias.
 * The idea that a list item should only be included if it has its own wikipage would seem to be circular referencing and puts Wikipedia as a superior source to outside references.
 * Part of the value of a list such as this is that it lists good subjects to be developed into articles.
 * The format followed in this list is basically consistent with what one sees in the previously mentioned List of restaurant chains in the United States or other articles such as Restaurant chains in Ireland, and List of railway companies. Indeed it can be argued this article is better referenced.
 * Primary sources used as references were provided as the diffs show. They may have not been ideal but contrary to your interpretation they are valid per WP:RS especially in conjunction with a corroborating second party source as has also been provided.  The editorial decision was made on my part to simply use ClicktheCity.com as the sole reference as a compromise since Ronz seemed to have a distaste for (valid) primary sources. Other sources can be produced and have been in previous diffs, that they were removed is because they do not seem to conform to the minimalist look of a list article like List of restaurant chains in the United States that was used as a template.
 * WP:RS states "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." As someone familiar with the subject the sources provided strike me as germane and adequate to the subject.  This is not a BLP and I do not think any contentious statements are being made.  If there are, please identify them.  If there are grounds for reasonable doubt please explain. I think some of the concerns raised are drifting into the realm of solipsistic thinking and is not constructive.  Should I question everything citing The Plain Dealer as a proper source based on being unfamiliar with it and thinking "What kind of proper newspaper would call itself that?"  From my perspective an internet search should put to rest doubts about the veracity of the information presented.  Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On clickthecity, in order for it to be considered a reliable source, we need to have good reason to believe that there is editorial oversight. Nothing on that page or on the submission link implies that the editors choose which restaurants to appear and which to not appear.  We can raise this at WP:RSN if needed.
 * Your claim of circular referencing is flat out wrong. I'm not saying we need wikipages to verify existence--I'm saying we need wikipages to verify that the restaurant is important enough to be on this list. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we do not provide exhaustive lists of all items that fit a particular topic.  Some standard must be used to define what can and cannot appear on the list.  Each individual item does not need to have its own page, but each item needs to be shown to be in some way deserving of inclusion.  Your pointing to List of restaurant chains in the United States is in fact an excellent example--all but a few of those have their own wikipages.  We cannot provide an exhaustive list of all restaurant chains in any country, nor should we.  We list those of encyclopedic value.  When I look at this list, all I see are a bunch of names.  I can't tell whether any one of those listed has 2 hot dog carts on a street in Manilla or has 300 locations across the country and internationally.  This is exactly why we need reliable sources, which leads to...
 * You state that "As someone familiar with the subject the sources provided strike me as germane and adequate to the subject." Apologies, but what sources are you talking about?  There are exactly 2 sources--one is the clickthecity that we dispute the reliability of, the other verifies exactly one restaurant chain.  Even if we accept clickthecity, are all of these restaurants listed there?  Since that page has a search engine and sorting, I can't even tell which restaurants are verified and which aren't.  And in reference to using the company websites: at best, that establishes that the company exists.  Most company websites are by definition "self-serving", and thus don't meet the exceptions for SPS in WP:RS.  We need independent, reliable verification of the existence of these chains and proof that they somehow are relevant enough to get past the directory (and other) restrictions in WP:NOT.
 * You later state "an internet search should put to rest doubts about the veracity of the information presented." This further shows that you are confusing existence with notability.  Again, I'm not saying that every item here must be notable enough for it's own wikipage. But it does have to be more notable than simply existing. This is exactly what WP:NOT is about: we are not here to provide a detailed list on every topic known to humanity.
 * Lists on Wikipedia, in general, serve one of two purposes--either they are navigational, which this is not as the majority of the list is unlinked, or they are informative, which this is not, because no information is given about these chains other than their names. While Manual of Style guidelines don't directly tell us what can and can't go in an article, take a look at WP:LIST, and see if this list meets any of those types of lists shown.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, a published book is in general considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but what level of editorial oversight are we assured of? ClicktheCity in that article I referenced above was described in The Manila Bulletin, a newspaper of record in the Philippines (or are you going to question that?), as "the Philippines’ premier portal city guide".  It even has its own app for cellphones  allowing "location-based services and content".  How is this possible without accurate and verified locations and content?  ClicktheCity is also mentioned in The Philippine Star, but I suspect the quick passing mention in the Sydney Morning Herald  will float your boat more. But I tell you what Qwyrxian, I say this is a good reference; you say it isn't. Very well give me what you think is the best single reference that you think exists on the subject and let us compare.
 * The existence of Wikipedia articles establish notability? Only indirectly.  If an article goes to AfD, guess what method is often used to establish notability?  Internet search results.  Qwyrxian if you don't believe an entry given here is notable enough to be on this list identify it and run a Google archive news search.  I'm pretty sure you'll find something for each one.  Now do I need to submit an article for each one?  Why be redundant?  It's listed on ClicktheCity.  By the way your claim that company websites "are by definition "self-serving", and thus don't meet the exceptions for SPS in WP:RS" would appear to be patently false.  Company websites are very often used as sources on themselves just look at the articles on the B-class rated McDonald's, KFC, and Burger King; the GA-class rated Ben's Chili Bowl; or the FA-class rated BAE Systems.
 * You should be able to tell about how many branches each restaurant chain has if you used the ClicktheCity reference site properly. As for which chains have been verified using it, I think all of them.  If you can find one that isn't, tell me.  In my view every entry here meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.  Now instead of citing Wikipedia guidelines and misinterpreting them, say in practical terms if you have any expertise in this subject area of Philippine restaurant chains why the entries I have selected are inappropriate.  Remember every single Wikipedia guideline has made room for exceptions and common sense—and it should be remembered why that is the case and why WP:IAR exists.  If I invoke that room, are you going to claim you have enough familiarity with this subject or enough basis for reasonable doubt to overrule my good faith contribution to this article?  Lambanog (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see the reference above to the Manilla Bulletin, but I'm not sure that it matters. Please don't get me wrong, the Bulletin is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source.  And I accept, at face value, the claim that clickthecity is a "premier portal city guide."  I further accept, as I meant to say before, that the fact that a restaurant is on that site proves that the restaurant exists.  That doesn't mean I then have to accept a listing on that site as proving the restaurant deserves a mention on our list.   Clickthecity serves a fundamentally different purpose from Wikipedia.  In the absence of other information, I assume that they would be more than willing to have basically any restaurant, as this fulfills their purpose--to be a city guide.  Our purpose, however, is to collect encyclopedic information.
 * I apologize on the company websites, because I think I wasn't clear. For the purposes of this list, a company's website could, again, verify existence.  In general a company website can verify non-controversial information about that company (exactly what information would be allowed would be determined by involved editors).  However, it doesn't satisfy our need to establish that the restaurant is notable enough to be on this list.
 * I will state explicitly that I have absolutely no expertise in Philippine restaurant chains. I have never been to the Philippines, nor have I studied this topic.  This fact is irrelevant.  And I further explicitly state that whether or not you do is irrelevant.  Wikipedia never gives more than partial deference to self-proclaimed "experts," and not enough to let them determine entirely on their own what will or will not be included on a stand-alone list. I certainly believe that you are adding these restaurants in good faith. That doesn't mean that I accept that your additions are correct. You can't raise WP:IAR to just solve a content dispute--otherwise any editor who believed they knew how an article should read could just call "IAR! IAR!" and I guess the argument would be over.  In any event, I am arguing that the list as it stands is actually doing harm (by turning a tiny portion of it into a directory rather than an encyclopedia, and seeking to exempt it from other core policies and guidelines).  So, since we don't agree what will be good for the encyclopedia, IAR doesn't really work.
 * However, I'm afraid we're getting a bit off track, because we didn't actually perform an important step. I'm going to start a new section; if you want to reply to any of this, feel free to do so, but we also need to... Qwyrxian (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Establish the criteria for appearing on this list
Maybe this is where the real problem is--so far, we have not explicitly agreed on the criteria for appearing on this list (other than the one currently in the lead, which I argue below is not acceptable). Please take a look at WP:LSC. For me, I usually look to the "Common Selection Criteria." We, of course, don't have to--the guideline is suitably flexible. If I understand you correctly, you're asserting that this list, as currently written, meets the standards found in bullet point one: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." Actually, you said that explicitly. However, I'll point out that when using that criteria, the guideline further implies that there should be reason to believe that any list entries that are not currently articles will "in the forthcoming future" become full articles. Further down, it explicitly states ""Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace. Write these in your userspace, or in a Wikiproject's space, or list the missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles." To me, that's exactly what this page currently is, except for the fact that the redlinks are currently omitted. So, I don't think the list as currently created meets the any of the common guidelines. Personally, I would prefer it did--I am a firm believer that WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR should be applied here and now, not based on some faraway future possibility. I believe that the correct thing to do with this list is to pare it down to only blue-linked articles, and then, as more articles on restaurant chains in the Philippines are created, then they get added to this list. That's how we prevent this list from violating (as it does now) WP:NOT. However, if another editor would like to propose a more clear guideline, then I would be happy to discuss. I will say that the criteria currently on the article, "have multiple branches and are notable enough to appear on Philippine restaurant guides or directories" is not an acceptable inclusion criteria--it is far too broad, and technically means that every restaurant in the Phillipines that has 2 or more locations and appears on in at least 1 guide (no matter how it gets into that guide) qualifies. That is far too inclusive, and literally turns this into nothing but a directory page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, I am impressed with your prompt yet detailed reply and willingness to discuss the topic. I wish to respond in kind and will do so, but currently I am going to be busy for a few hours so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to respond quickly but I wanted to drop a quick note to say that I appreciate the interest.  I will also say that I relied on editor discretion and used an arbitrary five branches as a quick guide in narrowing the field.  Will get back to you with more later. Lambanog (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have stated I am exercising editorial judgment as someone with familiarity with the subject in coming up with this list. WP:LSC states "Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." Using editorial judgment would therefore appear acceptable. If the list becomes too long and unwieldy I do not see a reason why editorial judgment cannot then be exercised to raise the bar for inclusion.  Qwyrxian, you acknowledge not knowing much about the subject so are relying solely on Wikipedia guidelines, but those guidelines are not clear.  Where there is ambiguity on the question of what to include and the absence of a clear reason not to include an item I think it would be reasonable that editors who have professed ignorance of the subject should defer to those who have demonstrated familiarity.  It is precisely because of situations like these that all Wikipedia guidelines have a backdoor.  An editor should not be able to block another editor solely on technicalities. Building a better encyclopedia is the ultimate end not the application of rules.


 * In light of that Qwyrxian, I would like you to answer this question: What is the tag for?  What is the intended effect?  Describe in detail what is now supposed to happen that will lead to the improvement of the article and the encyclopedia.  Someone is going to come along and add more refs?  That has been done.   That was reverted.   It does not really matter if those refs were not the best, they were valid as shown when comparing to McDonald's et al. Come to think of it I guess there is no reason not to restore those refs, so I will do so now.  In the meantime it may well be worth pondering if it is expected another editor is going to come along and improve the article.  Who is that editor? Lambanog (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article had refs, then I looked back, and they were gone (I believe correctly). Those are not reliable sources.  If you want to argue that they are, I think you need to take this up with WP:RSN.  I don't believe they source what we need them to source.
 * As to your greater argument, I disagree 100%. I absolutely do not believe that someone with knowledge of the subject should get deference from those who don't.  Policy should always win.  And I humbly submit that this article, as currently written makes the encyclopedia worse.  It transforms the encyclopedia into nothing more than a directory.  Now, even though I don't like them, I accept that the community believes that lists may exist which are solely navigational in nature.  Thus, if this list were only bluelinks, then I'd accept it, as such a list meets wide consensus across Wikipedia.
 * Finally, and more importantly, what is your rationale for saying that any restaurant with 5 or more locations deserves inclusion on a list of this type. I argue that number of locations means nothing.  I further argue that only reference in a reliable source indicating that the restaurant has some level of notability is acceptable for inclusion in this list.  I argue that the reason for this is WP:NOT, and that the article as written now is in clear, undeniable violation of that policy.  So, I would like to hear your rationale for your inclusion criteria, as that is the only way we can advance this discussion and, as you say, make the encyclopedia better.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an editor should give deference to another editor who is writing on article in view of WP:AGF absent any reason to doubt the work of the other editor and absent efforts to examine the work contributed. Healthy skepticism of course is fine and if you have done some due diligence and found something amiss or questionable then bringing it up and making an issue of it is understandable.  However if you have done some checking and find nothing wrong or if those things that you thought were red flags were subsequently addressed to your satisfaction, then I do not see the reason for opposition based principally on technicalities.  Indirectly and unavoidably what you are saying is you don't trust the editor's work.  But the fact of the matter is whether you like it or not, at some point you must rely on faith references or no.  Just because an editor supplies a book does not mean that the book is a good reference.  If the name of a book Guide to Philippine Restaurants was supplied would you question it?  But who is to say that book really exists?  Or if it did, that the information purportedly contained therein is really there?  Page numbers you may say, but even then how can you be sure the information is really there short of finding the book and looking the page up?  Realistically it boils down to good faith.  That's why contrariness arising from parsing and hairsplitting of guidelines is far more destructive to this encyclopedia than including information you cannot find a commonsensical reason to oppose.  You are questioning good faith.   The idea that references meeting some prefabricated criteria alone can validate an article is a chimera.  Any article here can be cited line-by-line and still be false.  Here as in the real world reputation counts for a lot. Is Encyclopedia Britannica considered a better source by some due to having more citations?  They make do with general references and are considered better regardless. If you are not willing to give some leeway to anonymous amateur encyclopedia article writers, you should not be here on Wikipedia.  You should be on Citizendium or rely on published encyclopedias.


 * But this is getting far afield. References have been supplied, but you are rejecting them on grounds that have no consensus. You are inserting yourself in the work of another editor simply because you can. My suggestion to improve the article is this: if you are going to do that exert the effort to add the references yourself.  Show some solidarity with the article builder. If you cannot show efforts to add and fix problems but only block, question, and argue with those who have earlier shown a willingness to do so, then your actions contradict your words. I think I have shown I am willing to improve the article.  If I categorically state I will refuse to do so while that banner is in place will you take up the slack? If not then the final result is an article that could have been improved is not improved because of bureaucratic red tape.  Would you be proud to consider yourself part of the bureaucracy? Lambanog (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to be at an impasse with Lambanog. Quoting myself from the very beginning of this discussion, "if a directory (or more than one directories) of Philippine restaurant chains was found and we agreed it was independent and reliable, we could list the chains from that directory, using the directory as a reference." I think the alternative is to remove all entries without their own article. --Ronz (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looked again at this statement by Ronz above. Seems to say that if an acceptable directory of Philippine restaurant chains is agreed upon then chains from that directory can be listed. My reading of Qwyrxian's comments is that he has acknowledged ClicktheCity as legitimate.  Ronz's last revert was based on WP:Linkspam.  I disagree with that but if that is the only objection it is clearly unrelated to the issue of the banner which is separate.  Ronz's last edit also kept the ClicktheCity ref and the additional directory ref I added.  I will consider this acceptance of it as a source absent any statement to the contrary.  In light of this I will remove the current banner in one hour if no objection is lodged in that time. Lambanog (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clickthecity is not acceptable anywhere in the article. It's exactly the sort of link that I don't want to be clicking on from Wikipedia.   And we don't want or need redundant banner tags either.  What's wanted are reliable sources or links to other articles please. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen citing entire websites is acceptable under APA and to address concerns of other editors here I moved that site from an external links to a reference, but I am perfectly content with, approve, and support your edit removing the counterproductive banner.  Thank you.  Lambanog (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for an exhaustive list of restaurants (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY). It's pretty simple: a list here should not be a spam magnet that encourages every restaurant in the Philippines to add their name and URL; instead, those restaurants which are sufficiently notable to have their own article may be listed here (list all those that actually do have an article, but redlinks to possible articles are probably not helpful to Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles are not required for each entry as one of the purposes and benefits of such lists is to identify notable topics for expansion from red links into articles. What is required for each entry is an independent source to establish the notability of the entry and to verify the fact of its existence.  I have added an example. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The WP:LISTPURP guideline allows for lists that provide information, as opposed to navigational lists, which only contain items that are wikilinked. In this context, I agree with Colonel Warden, there should be an independent source for each entry. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I need to ask 2 things: 1) What are the criteria for being on this list? Is it a certain minimum number of locations?  Is it mention in a certain kind of document (restaurant guide, travel guide, newspaper review, etc.)?  Is the list limited to restaurants in the Philippines, or is any restaurants associated with the Philippines acceptable, and, if so, what constitutes "associated with"?  Does it include all chains in the Philippines, even if they are international chains that serve "non-native food"? In other words, should McDonald's and Subway (restaurant) be on this list (assuming they have locations in the Philippines)?
 * I know I may sound irritating to some, but my opinion is that if we are going to have an informational list, we need a clear, well-defined topic, which explicitly and makes it very clear to both readers and editors which things belong on the list and which don't. Once we establish what the criteria are, we can then remove all non-verified items and any items that do not meet these criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are good questions, and I'm not sure. However, I've added a reference for the first entry, which I think is sufficient to justify its inclusion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the inclusion criteria could say this list is for restaurant chains that have their headquarters in the Philippines. PhilKnight (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Apologies, but that doesn't help (the first thing you said, about adding the Andok's source). Adding references only solves WP:V, not the broader (and, I think, more important) question of what kind/type of restaurants should be on this list. If I find a "reliable source" that verifies the existence of a "chain" of two hot dog carts in New York City that happen to sell something called a "Manilla Dog," can I include it? I'm not asking this question to be mean, or specious, or pointy--I'm asking because I really think that lists must have a well defined topic or they are not only worthless, they generate edit wars and act as spam/vandalism magnets. Depending on the criteria we choose, we may not even need to cite each item independently, but we have to have criteria.
 * (responding to your second statement): Such a criteria does sound plausible start (although it would probably require a name change). I think we also need to set minimum standards for inclusion as well (that is, not just any restaurant chain headquartered in the Philippines, but also...something...). It's very hard for me to make good suggestions, because my belief is "something" should be "notable enough for it's own page," so I'm at a loss for what lesser criteria is enough.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think we should hold a straw poll or a RfC to resolve the disagreement concerning the inclusion criteria? PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Book refs---verifying...?
Lambanog, can you explain what those books (The Food and Agriculture Centennial Book: 100 Years of Philippine Agriculture and Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry: Hotels and Restaurants) verify or say that is connected to this list? Just wondering how they're related...15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed them - sources should be cited. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please compare to List of aikidoka which is given as an example for a list class article under WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Also look at WP:Cite.  You are effectively removing a provided reference. I will revert your removal of sources absent an explanation from you.  Lambanog (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article you've mentioned is now a redirect, so I don't consider that to be a particularly convincing argument. The first line of WP:CITE says 'policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged'. At the very least all of the uncited, unlinked entries are being challenged, so a citation is required, and your general references are immaterial. To put it another way, specifically which entries, if any, do the general references support? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Phil, you've always struck me as a reasonable editor, so this conversation seems a little odd to me. Are you really concerned that (for example) Andok's might not exist, or that it might not be a restaurant chain, or that it might not be in the Philippines?  Or is this just a procedural complaint, rather like slapping a fact tag on the end of every sentence in an article to making a WP:POINT?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite for the Andok entry. In my humble opinion, it's reasonable to ask Lambanog which entries the general references support. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I hope that you'll get a response to that request. But I'm still trying to figure out the nature of your problem.  Do you think that some or all of the list entries are actually wrong, or not?  If a knowledgeable reader saw this page today, do you think it would prompt comments like "Funny, you've got a software company listed with the restaurants, and a famous French restaurant named as being in the Phillippines"?  Or do you suspect that it's probably all verifi able ?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is: what should the inclusion criteria be? My reading of the discussion on this page is there are 3 camps. Firstly, there are those who say the only entries should be blue links - that is entries that have their own article. Secondly, there are those, such as myself, who say that red links - that is entries without an article - are ok, provided an independent source is provided. Finally, there are those who seem to be suggesting that sources aren't needed at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking for inline citations. Your stated problem is confusion about the inclusion criteria.  I do not understand how spamming inline citations into this list is going to tell you what the inclusion criteria are.  Perhaps you can explain why you think this will help.
 * Inclusion criteria are normally decided by consensus. This consensus is ideally informed by common sense ("List of Philippine restaurant chains" should not include the names of Spanish software companies) and by editors' knowledge of reliable sources (If you know that the newspaper stories about Andok's usually call it a "chain", then it probably belongs on this list).    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider your above post to be slightly absurd. For example, characterizing adding citations as spamming is somewhat immature. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't answer my question. Pretend that I obtained one of the above books, and that it actually names each entry, and uses the exact words "famous Philippine restaurant chain" to describe every one of them.  I therefore type  at the end of each and every entry.
 * How, exactly, would that help you figure out what the editors' consensus for the list selection criteria are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Either you've completely misunderstood what I've said, or whatever, but I've no idea what you're talking about. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You've asked for inline citations. You have said the reason you want inline citations is., "The problem is: what should the inclusion criteria be?"  I do not see how your proposed solution (inline citations) solves your stated problem (lack of editor consensus about inclusion criteria).
 * I therefore begin to wonder whether your demand for inline citations is shading into procedural disruption -- as in, I want clear and reasonable selection criteria, and I'm not getting them, so I'm going to lash out at the other editors with a WP:POINTy demand for inline, rather than general, citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia policy requires citations. In other news, there's a disagreement concerning the inclusion criteria. Also, I think you've derailed this thread, which was started by another editor to ask a perfectly reasonable question. Regarding Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry: Hotels and Restaurants, which entries are verified by this? PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Wikipedia's policy requires that information (except direct quotations and contentious matter about BLPs, neither of which apply) be verifi able, not cited.  If a reliable source exists -- anywhere on the planet, even if none of us know what the source says -- then the material technically meets the minimum policy requirements.  Additionally, WP:CITEs (exactly like the ones you removed) are acceptable citations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I'd still like to know whether the 'Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry: Hotels and Restaurants' verifies any of the entries on this list. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Then Phil you can borrow the book. Alternatively you can find another solution.  Going through all of these finding another reference is one path and since it appears that is what you are doing, you seem to be at least backing up your words with action.  But my preferred approach from the start has been to simply use Clickthecity as a reference.  It is a short and immaculate solution and one I feel anyone here with a genuine interest in resolving this dispute should take seriously. However, for whatever reason you don't seem satisfied with that.  In my view looking up individual references for each entry is a needless masochistic exercise that I would rather spare you from, but if you feel entries here do not belong, then it's an exercise you'll have to go through.  At least by the end you'll be in a better position to determine what belongs and what doesn't. If you wish to pursue this approach and are unsatisfied with what has been presented so far here are a couple more to look up further: LASA: a guide to 100 restaurants by Doreen Fernandez and Lonely Planet's guide to the Philippines by Chris Rowthorn. Lambanog (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @WhatamIdoing: no, that's not what policy says. Yes, policy uses the word "verifiable," but you can't read just accept that single word. Notice further on in WP:V: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.""This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."


 * Consider this article from the perspective of a reader with no direct knowledge of The Philippines. Other than by trusting us, how can they know that a given entry is accurate?  For that matter, let's imagine that, tomorrow, someone new adds "Kilkenny's" to this list. How do I, as an editor, know if this is a real Philippine restaurant chain?  I mean, it sounds Irish, to me.  But maybe there's a famous chain of Irish restaurants because it's recently a fad in the Philippines.  The point is that we need a reliable source (or, of course, a bluelink, since presumably the target page could verify the accuracy of the placement of the entry on this list).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic standard is relevant, because editors are entitled to WP:IGNORE bad-faith challenges -- say, "factual" challenges to every single bit of material in an article, when issued by an editor currently involved in a different dispute about the article. If a "challenge" is a WP:GAME intended to gain ascendancy in another dispute, it's not a challenge.
 * But think about what you're saying: We had two general references, which Phil declared unacceptable.  The books are apparently hard-copy only.  Pretend that we spam  after each entry, thus making them inline citations.  Other than by trusting us, how can the reader know that the source contains the claimed material?  And how, exactly, is that materially different from the reader trusting us without us spamming sixty-two identical ref tags on to the page?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In contrast to PhilKnight, I don't see you Qwyrxian exerting any effort at all to build up or develop a credible body of knowledge to mount a challenge that is based on more than just polemic. How do you know Kilkenny's wouldn't be a pertinent addition to the list?  Simple: it probably won't appear in any of the sources that have been given throughout the history of this article and you can perform an internet search and likely come up with scant coverage.


 * Questioning simply for the sake of questioning is disruptive behavior that should be avoided and discouraged. Someone could for example do the mirror of what you are doing and question every single last entry in List of restaurant chains in the United States.  Shouldn't that list article also take the perspective of a reader who may not be familiar with it?  If someone with no direct knowledge of the United States insisted that every list article about the U.S. have an inline cite from a secondary source for everything despite not showing any basis for such insistence save the guideline you cite, would that be considered productive or a waste of time?  I think the latter, since it would be a misinterpretation of said guideline.  To save pointless argument WP:IAR I think could also be safely invoked in such a case.  Unless one is advocating a double standard, the view I have expressed finds applicability here as well. Lambanog (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On List of restaurant chains in the United States--they wouldn't have to, because nearly every entry on that page is a blue link! And the one's that aren't should probably be removed.  I'm not being polemic, I'm trying to make this list meet policy.  The only policy you seem to be invoking is IAR, which is a policy of last resort, and certainly not a justification to overrule WP:OR and WP:V, not to mention the associated notability and reliable sources guidelines.  And the burden for keeping any information ALWAYS lies on the person who wants to include the info.  Personally, I want to delete every non-blue linked item on this page.  I haven't, because it will just lead to an edit war.  Instead, I want you, and everyone else here, to define (1) Choose an inclusion criteria, and make the lead reflect that, and (2) Find sources that prove that every single entry meets that criteria.  PhilKnight proposed a straw poll earlier, and that's probably what we should do; I'll try to work one up when I can.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [Lambanog puts on his pointy hat] A blue link means nothing! To quote the relevant guideline: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.""This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."
 * Blue links aren't sources. Lambanog (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're definitely being pointy. The point is that the bluelinks have references on their own pages.  Of course, if a bluelink on the US List went to a page for a company that was located in Russia, it should also be removed.  Thus, my original point: blue link, or source, and well-defined inclusion criteria.  04:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [Lambanog admiring his pointy hat in the mirror] But how do I know that there are reliable source references on the articles of each individual entry? Are you suggesting that in this age of instant gratification that a reader actually look up said article and verify its contents?  They might as well go to the library!  Surely you jest.  Lambanog (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing: Please note that I didn't remove the sources. I merely asked what they were verifying. This is in line with my claim all along--I'm concerned that the sources being added (all of them, not just those two) only verify the existence of the restaurants (okay, in fairness, my original concern was spamming all the corporate sites, but that issue seems to be temporarily on hold). This, along with my claim that mere existence as a restaurant chain is not sufficient to justify inclusion on this list, is why I asked. According to the page now, mere inclusion in any restaurant guide is enough to indicate a restaurant deserves inclusion. I do not believe that is sufficient. This, of course, is an editorial decision, not a policy-based one (although policy is relevant, it's not something cut-and-dry), which is why I'm not willy-nilly reverting. But we have a dispute here, despite some people's unwillingness to recognize one. Different people have different beliefs about what belongs on a list like this. We need to come to a consensus decision about that. I've been trying to advance that question all along, although I'll admit I've been sidetracked and haven't always been as clear as I possibly could. However, I have been told, alternatively, that I just have to leave it to experts, or that IAR somehow implies that my desire for clarity is wrong and misguided and bad for the encyclopedia. I'm not making a point solely to make one; I'm making the point because I think it actually matters that, if we're going to have an informative list (i.e., one composed of info, not of links), then we need to be very, explicitly clear about what we're including for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I hope this clarifies my concerns not just about the book but about the article in general. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is, at minimum, confusion over the list selection criteria. I think the demand for sources is amounting to a distraction from resolving that dispute.
 * If there aren't too many possible verifiable entries (=32K, or about six times this many entries), then 'mere inclusion in a guide', or even 'mere existence of the business' might be a perfectly reasonable standard. But I think you will have been results if you focus directly on that problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Inclusion Criteria
WP:SAL (the manual of style guidline for stand-alone lists) states the following: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Future editors should not be left to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the page. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others." The guidelines then go on to list some common criteria, which are, in short, Further, it explicitly states that "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles don't belong in mainspace."
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.
 * Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria (this is for lists of things that do not warrant independent articles)
 * Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.

We are, of course, free to propose our own criteria. I would like to formally start a discussion on what those criteria should be, along with a straw poll. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Options

 * 1) Blue-linked articles only (i.e., the first of the "common criteria").
 * 2) Chains with X or more locations that are headquartered in the Philippines (a corporate website would be sufficient to meet this criteria)
 * 3) Chains with X or more locations that are headquartered in the Philippines with one of the following additional criteria:
 * 4) Mentioned in any source, including a guidebook, online site, or review
 * 5) Mentioned in a reliable source (reliable meaning there is some editorial oversight determining which chains are included and which are not; most travel guides and directories, in paper or online would not meet this criteria)
 * 6) Mentioned in a reliable source in a more than passing manner
 * 7) Mentioned in a reliable source in a more than passing manner, and reviews do not count
 * 8) Chains with X or more locations in the Phillipines, without regard to where the headquarters are, with or without any of the additional criteria from option 3
 * 9) Something else... (please add to Discussion section and I'll add here)

Straw Poll

 * Option 1 is the best for me, but if consensus wants something more inclusive, I prefer 4.4, although 4.3 is fine for me as well as long as the review were in a national or prominent regional newspaper/magazine. I believe X should be equal to at least 3, as for me 2 locations does not a chain make.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the problems of defining the inclusion criteria, Option 1 may well be the most appropriate choice. Otherwise, either 3.3/3.4 or 4.3/4.4. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no problems defining the inclusion criteria aside from people not knowing the subject inserting themselves into the discussion. But I grant that maybe I'm being presumptuous, so for the record can everyone claiming they are familiar with Philippine restaurant chains and are competent to discuss the subject indicate who they are? [Raises hand]. Lambanog (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, I suggest you move the above comment into the discussion section, and replace it with a clear statement in regard to your preferred option. PhilKnight (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
You all know I prefer a fully blue-linked list, but I can see the logic in being more inclusive. I personally don't think there's any reason to require the headquarters be in the Philippines; that would be for some theoretical article titled List of restaurants based in the Philippines. That is, to me, if you're going to include black/red linked restaurants, I don't see what any international chain doesn't belong here either. But even that I'm flexible on. I really think the list is more encyclopedic if it requires some sort of reliable source mention (because this distinguishes between existence and encyclopedic value). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Basic problem: To make a determination on what appropriate criteria for inclusion should be, it would be best for people involved to have some familiarity with the subject.


 * For example: Cafe Adriatico is a restaurant that opened in 1979. There was a time when it was a fashionable place to go.  It has been able to parlay some of that cachet as mention in tourist guide books.  Its locations are in tourist areas near hotels.  A search on Clickthecity, however, shows it only has three branches.  On the other hand there is Kamay Kainan a restaurant that specializes in local cuisine.  I would say it has kept a generally low profile and hasn't really made an effort to distinguish itself like Kamayan or Barrio Fiesta which have targeted a more affluent clientele and even have their own line of products sold in supermarkets.  But if you think about it, Kamay Kainan has locations at most of the major shopping centers.  If you are familiar with recent Philippine cultural trends you'd also know that commercial activity has increasingly become centered around malls. Which is the more notable restaurant chain?  Why?  And to whom?  From my perspective NPOV is skewed one way or another depending on the choice of criteria.  If you choose books as the primary reliable sources, aside from the public companies, one will see greater weight placed on those chains serving tourists and the more affluent.  If you choose number of branches as the criteria, restaurants catering to locals have stronger credentials.  Without knowing the subject, these considerations may go unrecognized.  Lambanog (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but that's not how Wikipedia works. No prior knowledge of a topic is required.  In fact, as WP:SAL says and I quoted before, the inclusion criteria must be made explicitly clear for all editors.  The criteria can be complex (i.e., an "A or B" criteria is okay, if carefully worded), but it can't just be left up to "knowledgeable editors."  Otherwise, what happens if another editor comes along and claims to be knowledgable and disagrees with your inclusion or exclusion?  You simply can't set yourself (or you and a group of "experts") as the sole arbiter(s).  We don't even do that for topics that supposedly require "expertise," like science topics.  It will help if you instead try to form some clear inclusion criteria.  As I said, if you don't think any of them are sufficient, please propose something else.  Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong—on a number of things. Criteria has been given.  Editorial judgment is allowed.  Rules that get in the way of building the encyclopedia can be ignored.  Relying solely on "rules" to build the encyclopedia which is the fundamental justification it seems you give for your participation here is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, even overlooking the fact you are misinterpreting them.  Despite admittedly knowing nothing about the subject, you insist on knowing what is best for the article.  As for knowledgeable editors disputing with one another, such editors one would expect would be able to argue intelligently about the subject and arrive at a better article.  Ignorant editors are as likely to misrepresent everything.  Here's an idea: why don't you go to the article neurosurgery and insist on improving the references there? Do you think ignorant participation would be welcomed there? Lambanog (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I currently edit quite a number of articles on which I am not an expert--because I am capable of following policy, reading and summarizing sources, and writing in a neutral fashion. I believe experts are valuable, and critical in many areas.  Experts are usually most valuable when they are able to, based on their wide knowledge of a field, pick out those sources which best demonstrate consensus within the field, as well as helpful at identifying the relative importance of minority views.  In any event, I would appreciate it if you would stop talking about my attitudes as an editor (which you don't even seem to understand, anyway), and focus on the content.
 * We currently have an editorial dispute. Some editors want an all blue-linked article (not because we're focused on rules, but because we, or at least I, fundamentally believe that is better for the encyclopedia). Others do not believe that's necessary, preferring to make this a more "informative" list.  And let me be clear, just so there's no confusion--even though I prefer a bluelinked article, I have absolutely no problem going with some other criteria, so long as we make it clear what that criteria is.
 * The goal at least as far as I understand editing at Wikipedia is to work towards consensus (as long as that consensus meets wider community consensus embedded in policy and guidelines). If you don't want to work towards consensus, what should we do?  Would you like me to open an RfC?  Do you want me to take this up at a noticeboard, or a Wikiproject?  I want to understand how you want to move forward. So far, your approach seems to be "Let the knowledgeable editor (me) decide everything." As far as I can see, that's the attitude that's "contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia."  But maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying.  So, please, I'm really, honestly, sincerely asking: How do you think we should move forward collaboratively to determine, by consensus, what the scope of this list should be? I had thought a straw poll would be a good way to jump start this process, based on others' suggestions.  Maybe it wasn't...maybe we need some form of dispute resolution...or something else.   Please, help me know what we can do, together, to start working towards consensus.   Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lambanog, your dismissive attitude to anyone else's view other than your own is unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, Lambanog, you'll be the one to lose out. If you continue this way (not engaging collaboratively), then we'll develop a consensus without you. This would be sad--as I said above, I like having experts contribute, as long as they are willing to contribute collaboratively. But, really, it's up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So Qwyrxian this is a matter of winning or losing out is it? Why is it I get the feeling the kind of language now being used is something one would more likely expect to find in an elementary schoolyard somewhere?  Go ahead team up and "form your consensus"—bully is a pithier term—if that's what you wish.   Strange, and here I thought this was about writing a nice article that could be of some help to people interested in the subject. I came here to write articles not engage in petty politics. With the amount of words wasted on this talk page this article should already be ready for an FA but I leave it to your collective imaginations why that isn't the case and what caused the diversion to this pointless discussion in the first place that will lead to an inferior article.
 * By the way Phil, forgive me for saying this but I haven't found your performance during this entire episode particularly "helpful" either. If I knew you were open to it I'd have taken up Carl's suggestion and presented you with a trout. With this latest comment of yours, I'd up it to a whale.
 * Why shouldn't I be dismissive of these comments being made? I know where this article could have been if I was not interrupted and sidetracked with this frivolity.  I know that you probably wouldn't have needed to exert yourself finding references because I would have been willing to supply them myself when I got around to writing the articles about the individual entries. But you wish to back the policy wonks rather than the content creator.  Very well then, you can do the work and take pride in the quality of it. Lambanog (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So...No more comments...Lambanog has taken his/her ball and gone home...so does that mean that the only editors remaining are willing to follow option 1? Since I'm not comfortable deciding on my own, I'll open an RfC.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still around, but I see little reason to exert myself at the moment absent assurances that I will not encounter groundless interference from ignorant parties who remove perfectly valid sources based on false insinuations and misrepresentations of guidelines.  Lambanog (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, the disagreement could be characterized as: there are editors, such as yourself, who have a familiarity with this subject, but have relatively little understanding of policy and guidelines, while there are other editors such as myself who aren't familiar with this subject, but have a solid understanding of policy and guidelines. Of course, this is a simplification, and I'm not suggesting this applies to everyone involved in this disagreement. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is what you claim then by all means go ahead and add more references so that we may see what an article that more closely conforms to guidelines and policies looks like. However, if I may be so bold, I'd suggest the blog article you used as a reference should be replaced by another source.  The article below another article you referenced perhaps?  Of course if it was just me I'd think general referencing everything with something like Philippines' Best Restaurants 2010 would be sufficient but as long as you're willing to find more specific references for all the entries I guess I have no qualms.  Lambanog (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment--Inclusion Criteria
Should this list be strictly navigational (i.e., bluelinks only), or should it include unlinked items? If the latter, what do we need to verify--that is, what criteria would allow a chain to appear on this list? Some specific suggestions appear in the section above, although any other suggestion would also be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC responses

 * Inclusive I see no problems with a list that includes red/black items. However, I agree that there should be a clear guideline for which chains should be included. The clearest guideline I can think of is that of notability, there must be reliable sources to show that the chain exists and is notable in the Philippines. I would support any other inclusion rule as long as it's clear, verifiable, and results in a not over-long list. LK (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Philippine restaurant chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081103003825/http://www.manilatimes.net:80/national/2007/nov/21/yehey/business/20071121bus12.html to http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/nov/21/yehey/business/20071121bus12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Philippine restaurant chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.foodscaper.me/restaurants/binalot
 * Added tag to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view_article.php?article_id=71453
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313055319/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/08/11/life/gerry.s.grill.opens.offers.local.favorites.html to http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2004/08/11/life/gerry.s.grill.opens.offers.local.favorites.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904173257/http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/food/food/view/20100902-289995/Classic-chicken-reinvented to http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/food/food/view/20100902-289995/Classic-chicken-reinvented
 * Added tag to http://118.107.238.64

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)