Template talk:Pizza chains

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Related taskforces:
/
	This template is supported by the Foodservice task force.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP: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.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Revert

This was my edit, I had just forgotten to sign in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very large

the template just grew in length with this 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]

Another possibility would be to make it a navbox w/collapsible subgroups. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:39, 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]

Add Pat's?

Is Pat's Pizza too small to add here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 location cutoff

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 says about 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 the WP: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 of WP:Notability; they really only establish WP:Verifiability. When these chains do become more widely dispersed and have more WP: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 of WP:Advertising. A lot of these that I have encountered read like they were written by professional script writers and are full of WP:Peacock statements and WP:Weasel words that make them suspect.

Does that help make the reasons more clear why we have the 100 store recommendation? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But then why is a famous chain like Lou Malnati's Pizzeria not included? This is the family that invented Chicago style pizza. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, there may not be enough in the article to justify its inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read through the article states the chain itself did not create Chicago-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]