This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
the template just grew in length withthis edit, include quite a bit of whitespace due to the lack of entries in many groups. I don't like the new format, and think we should go back to the old format.Frietjes (talk)22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the old format is that there are so many "(US)", etc., under N. America, that one cannot easily see which chains are in Canada, Mexico, etc. Usually, companies are always sorted by their industry and their country. If there is a way to list some of the countries horizontally where there's only one chain, I'm open to ideas. --Funandtrvl (talk)23:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frietjes, the change made it too large. the previous format worked better. In some cases, we don't countries with one chain having their own line. I reverted it to the previous state. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)06:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no discussion on talk showing how consensus was reached regarding this completely arbitrary figure of 100 locations. There's no rationale for limiting it to this and as such, I see no reason to adhere to an arbitrary comment thrown in by a single editor.Kindzmarauli (talk)18:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 location cutoff was decided on one of the other similar templates through a general consensus that evolved over time and because it is a good number to start with - it indicates the chain has a major presence in the industry. We only want to include major chains that have a significant impact. By not including smaller chains with fewer locations we keep the template more manageable. Also, you'll note that it saysabout 100 locations. If a small chain has more notability, it can be included. The 100 store location is more of a recommendation that a requirement.
Further, it has been my experience that many of these smaller chains simply do not have the notability required to even have an article. I have found that most are only supported by citations that fall under theWP:Routine guidelines (Opening notices, reviews or other similar routine, non-notable coverage as opposed to articles about the businesses themselves). Local coverage is not really acceptable in establishing the requirements ofWP:Notability; they really only establishWP:Verifiability. When these chains do become more widely dispersed and have moreWP:Significant coverage, we usually include them.
Another problematic set of issues I have encountered is articles that are being used to promote the businesses in violation ofWP:Advertising. A lot of these that I have encountered read like they were written by professional script writers and are full ofWP:Peacock statements andWP:Weasel words that make them suspect.
A quick read through the article states the chain itself did not createChicago-style pizza, it was founded by the brothers who created it while working at Pizzeria Unos. I interpret that it was the founder who is important, not the chain. --Jeremy(blah blah •I did it!)07:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
