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 Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lead_and_selection_criteria.

The list was a linkfarm, and I tagged it as such [1]. 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#External links in embedded lists. 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#Ronz's_editing_behavior, 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)

I do not believe ANI is premature. Ronz has been reported at ANI multiple times before, and involved in numerous disputes. In one instance among many, he was seen by third parties as a provocateur in a dispute that ended in a content contributor with over 130000 edits and 1300 articles ultimately being banned. It has been observed that Ronz does not add to content. WP:RS/N has been tried and instead of welcoming outside comments, Ronz's response there discouraged them. WP:3O has been attempted and again Ronz, instead of encouraging the dispute resolution process, blocked it. RfC seems to be his favored venue and for that reason alone I am wary of it, not to mention that I should jump through the hoops that he sets. There is also the technicality that two editors need to sign on or the RfC can be junked within 48 hours. Ronz is most likely aware of this since a previous RfC against him went nowhere due to lack of certification. Lawrence if you are willing to sign, then it becomes an option to be considered.

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 for attempting to find a resolution to this matter. Lambanog (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)