Talk:Max's Restaurant

Spam Links
I don't see which links are supposed to be spam, unless you mean the external links. Although I do agree that the overall tone of the article needs to be written in a more neutral way. I've rewritten the Commercials section so it doesn't sound so promotional anymore. I felt it was improper to remove it because it was, in fact, popular enough in the Philippines that the restaurant has become closely linked to the commercials and to the models involved. As for the profusion of other restaurants mentioned in the last section, these are not promotional since they actually identify the restaurant as a top polluter in one of their locations. Perhaps some other tag is more relevant? As for the external links themselves, well, I dunno but I find them just appropriate. But that's just me. Alternativity (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

History
The history section has some lines that seem to be like promoting the restaurant. Should be neutral. Ominae (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Modified it a bit and took down the NPOV banner since it's been over a month. If you still feel there is a problem feel free to put it back up.  The opening does seem to be a bit of a puff piece but I don't see anything specifically to dispute.  I feel removing it entirely is the only way to remove the narrative feel of the History section.  In any event it probably does give an idea of how the restaurant has managed to have such longevity by creating a story in a manner like KFC's Colonel Sanders. Lambanog (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pollution -> Pasaway sa Lawa -> Mulish of the lake?
"Mulish of the lake" just sounds wrong to my ears. I will change it to "prodigals of the lake" but am not very sure of the nuance of the term "pasaway". If the emphasis is on poor behavior other possibilities I see are "misfits", "rascals", "rogues", "cads", and "reprobates", in increasing order of increasing severity. Another word I'm considering since the term I'm replacing is "mulish" is "incorrigibles" if the proper emphasis is on stubbornness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags
The article reads like an advertisement. It has not been built from third party reliable sources that indicate why the chain is notable, but clearly from its own marketing materials. That is why the advertisement tag is up. IMDB is not a reliable source for biographic information. It cannot be used in the manner you are using it. That is why it has been deleted and a citation needed tag has been placed there. The "reference improve" tag is obvious -- there are two references in the entire entry, and one is the company's website. References clearly need improvement. Please improve the entry instead of removing tags.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are acceptable for uncontroversial information. Likewise while IMDB may not be considered an adequate source by itself, there is no harm in it being a supporting source and removing it is uncalled for. You have not specified your exact problems with the article and therefore it makes it hard to address the specific concerns.  I do not know what you find controversial. Without knowing that, I do not know the reason for the banners and shall remove them. Lambanog (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not looking at the three matters separately. Do you really think this is adequately sourced?  Please do not remove the ref-improve tag again.  There is only one reliable source on this page.  Most of the text is unsourced.  I've explained this adequately three times now.   You've added a Spanish language source that does not appear to be WP:RS, and you've added another source that is not adequate per WP:BLP for information about a living person.  I did not remove the information I simply tagged it so you could get a good source.  Regarding the advertisement issue, I do think it reads like an ad, but that is what happens when you don't have reliable third party sources to work with.  Yes, primary sources are acceptable, but promoting restaurants on Wikipedia with non-notable materials put out by the companies is not.  For the sake of not edit warring I will not restore my edits but I will ask for outside input here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both sources added are reliable enough for the purpose. One is a daily tabloid the other is a television network.  More than sufficient for this rather standard subject.  Lambanog (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly NOT "more than sufficient". WP:V requires that any challenged statement be adequitely sourced from reliable sources. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to some of the rules in this encyclopedia, one way to make sure that an article about a company or organization isn't a meer advertisement is to have it written in neutral language. I'm pretty sure the details of this article are written as neutral as possible. 119.93.67.178 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RS/N
I've started a discussion here - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I will also add a note to the BLP/N about this discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max's of Manila. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325132313/http://telebisyon.net/balita/Pasalamatan-natin-si-George-Canseco/artikulo/17775/ to http://telebisyon.net/balita/Pasalamatan-natin-si-George-Canseco/artikulo/17775/

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) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Max's of Manila → Max's Restaurant – As per WP:COMMONNAME, also the this name is also the official name for the restaurant and this seems to be an alternate name. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I have actually never heard of this restaurant chain being called "Max's of Manila". I only know of it as "Max's Restaurant" or just "Max's" and you can see this in the restaurant chain's signages and website. —seav (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.maxschicken.com/page/about-us https://www.maxsrestaurantna.com/our-story. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)