Talk:Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reinstating the Updates

Ever since there has been a removal of the updates for the restaurants for Kitchen Nightmares, I am seeking the consensus of editors to reinstate the updates and prevent them from being removed in the future. I am called on all editors who want the updates to return to vote on this issue:

• KEEP Numerous editors have work on the updates and it is a travesty of justice to remove them. Many of the articles have a references from a credible media sources both online and in print. We should not fall into a trap of conformity, where we follow what is being done in the other article Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares where the updates have been removed. Roman888 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Roman88 has canvassed the talk pages of 9 other editors in an attempt to votestack. The opinions of any of those users who return to this page after having previously departed should be discounted in any evaluation of consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note That's a load of rubbish its not canvassing as we don't know whether they want to keep or remove the updates. Stop trying to cloud the issue and make it like I am trying to votestack in favour of keeping the updates. As for canvassing argument, many people have called or messaged me to contribute to their discussions or articles. Maybe you can report them as well since you show that you care. Roman888 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus was made above. Disagreeing with the outcome does not equal no consensus. Roman, in all of you messages here, you're making an emotional argument, not a factual one. Please back up your reasons for wanting to keep the information in using policies and guidelines, not feelings and vague reasons like "credible media sources" (which has already been debunked above many times, if you had bothered to read this page).

By the way, you are votestacking. "I am in the midst of gathering everyone to give their comments on reinstating the updates for Kitchen Nightmares..." It is very clear you had zero intention of sending messages to anyone who may have disagreed with you and you only considered doing so once you were called out on it. The only reason I knew this was going down was because I watch this page. So ridiculous. Also, it won't help anyway. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't run on votes. We run on consensus, which means the best argument for inclusion is the one used, not how many people vote on it. --13² 16:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop making all those unwarranted accussations about votestacking. I was in the midst of sending out votes to all the parties involved so that everyone can vote on a survey to find out whether the updates should have been kept or not. If you feel left out I will be posting the message in your dicussion page. First of all the above consensus wasn't done properly and no survey was done to find out whether or not the updates should have been removed in the first place. I give you several examples such as the following: WP:TFD Here hundreds of templates are asked to be removed from wikipedia and a message is placed on top of the article asking for the removal of the template. Editors are allowed to come on and post whether they want to keep it or not. Your argument about democracy is flimsy, as I would have called for the person (Drmargi) who has reverted the most changes in the article to be banned. Roman888 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The same issue arose on the UK article, when Roman888 attempted to win by vote while denying he was. It is regrettable Roman is being guided by this much anger. I hope he will reconsider the path on which he has embarked, and respect the consensus built above, particularly given that, until now, he has never edited this article to my certain knowledge. WRT his argument he was "gathering" comments; there was a gap of nearly 30 minutes between his last post on an editor's talk page and User:Parsecboy's warning regarding canvassing and votestacking, which brings the assertion he was simply gathering everyone into question. Drmargi (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I always find it odd when users say things like "consensus was not reached" or "building consensus was not done properly" and other such nonsense when they disagree with the consensus. There is no formal mode of gaining consensus (except through arbitration) and consensus is met when the best argument within Wikipedia's regulations is made, not when some majority vote is met or when there is no longer disagreement between users. --13² 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Again you make it sound like you guys have reached a consensus. Did you contact the other editors or contributors in this article before reaching the consensus? Did you conduct a survey to find out whether the updates should be kept or not. You damn right there is a disagreement involved with keeping or removing the updates. Notice how many reverts and edit warring occured after the removal of the updates. There you don't have the consensus. The updates should have stayed put until a concensus was made. Now I have to conduct a survey to bring back the updates when by right it should have stay. How to I also know that thirteen squared, Parsecboy and DrMargi are the same person? So stop making all these unwarranted accussations. Roman888 (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We did reach a consensus. Just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean a consensus wasn't reached. No, you absolutely do not have to contact editors, nor do you have to throw up a survey. Edit warring does not negate a consensus, especially when the users refuse to come here and discuss and, instead, continue reverting and arguing in the edit summaries. Sorry, but that doesn't equal no consensus. Disagreement does not equal no consensus. If it did, Wikipedia would cease to exist because there is no issue anywhere here where everyone will agree.

If you're really going to keep arguing about whether or not there was a consensus, I suggest you start considering dispute resolution, where the decision is more binding, they'll care about policies/guidelines even more than we do, and things like "it's interesting" "it's elsewhere" and "I like it" will hold zero bearing on the argument and they'll take very seriously the fact that there was already an established consensus on the issue that used policies/guidelines. If this does continue and you don't take it there, I or somebody else will.

There's a lot more evidence here to suggest that the accounts that have zero edits outside of this article and their userspace are a single person than the accounts that have thousands of edits on hundreds of articles over a number of years and only have this one article in common. Try again. --13² 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you did not reach a consensus. How did you reach a consensus? Did you conduct a survey? Did you get the feedback from all the past contributors for this article? Did you get the feeback from the editors who posted the updates for the restaurants? Do you mean the top subject heading where only 3 of you started a conversation amongst yourselves? How do you call that consensus when no other editors were involved in that conversation? Did you realise that people who have provided updates would want their say. Notice I have posted a comment up there - so that means you don't have concensus? You keep on harping that you have reached a consensus and you sound like the same person as DrMargi. I feel that you are none other that a sockpuppet of his. He made the same claims in the other article - Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Everytime someone challenge him, he went to hide under the flimsy argument that consensus was made. Notice how many reverts were made in this article and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares.

Talking about guidelines and policies when its crystal clear that you have a flimsy argument. I can also be WP:BOLD and make the updates. Maybe you should read up the guidelines on deletion: WP:DPR. Just read the top paragragh.... decision may not have been as obvious as you may have thought..

You must have a lot of free time on your hands. Maybe I should hire you for my friend to check on his wife when she goes out shopping. Because you keep on making these unwarranted accusations. How do I know that your also not a sockpuppet of the serial reverter? Damn, sorry for making an accusation against you! Roman888 (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For the love of everything, please take this to dispute resolution, where we can get neutral, more binding input if you won't drop it. At this point, it's abundantly clear that you do not understand consensus. There is no formal process outside of dispute resolution to gather consensus. Yes, despite your protests, discussion among three users (all of which, by the way, have been very active on this page, compared to those protesting who, well, aren't) can, indeed, establish consensus.

You seem to be clinging to this idea of a vote and everybody possible needs to vote and OMG WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A VOTE?!?!?!?! Because votes don't count. Period. You have not, during this entire conversion, brought up one, single, sole, individual policy or guideline as a reason to include the updates. There are are many policies and guidelines being used as reason to remove them, as can be seen above. Please use reason, instead of emotion, as to why we should keep the updates, otherwise this is just you bickering for the sake of bickering, which isn't at all productive. By the way, it's rather interesting how defensive you're being about accusations of SPA despite never actually being accused of it. Suspicious? Just a little. --13² 03:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the voting thing, per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, "Consensus is not a majority vote." We can use this section to debate inclusion, but the number of Keeps vs. Removes doesn't mean anything. And I agree with 13^2 on this: if you can give us some reason to justify inclusion, as I requested in my !vote below, then we can discuss. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I really like that page. Thanks! --13² 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to take this to dispute resolution. Just resolve this in this discussion page and get it done with. Its also abundantly clear that you also not not understand what is consensus. Go and check the other rules and guidelines about deletion policies - WP:DP. Was there a proper deletion discussion or review? Was there a proper survey done, especially from the other editors who want back the updates?

Do you want a big major reason for keeping the updates? How many people have provided you a BIG reason? Proper main stream media sources and references have been provided for the updates before. This has been backed up. But people like you guys subjectively shoot down one ref after another, and saying its not official. Who made you the judge? So I agree with many of the other guys who wanted to revert and bring back the changes. I support them for being WP:BOLD and overturning your changes. I should have reported all you guys for edit warring and for reverting. Just by looking at the history pages I got all the evidence.

3 active guys who keep on being defensive about consensus, and rushing to message each other pages saying there is a guy trying to get back the updates. Then trying to make accusations about SPA. Must be some roommates gathering together in a dormitory trying to control and rule Wikipedia. Does that tell me you guys are a clique who gather around to share marshmallows and hot chocolate and revert other people's changes, especially those who want the updates to return. Or you guys a sockpuppet group? Wow! I am being suspicious here. Roman888 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Couple of things here. First, WP:DP is about deletion of articles, not content, so it doesn't apply. On this particular page, yes, there was a discussion about deletion - several, in fact. And who made us the judges about references? WP:RS did, as it's one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Blogs and such are not reliable sources. And if I were you, I would avoid accusing any of us of sockpuppetry: aside from accusing being a form of attack, it's patently not true. I have more than 15,800 edits; 13^2 has 3900; and Drmargi has around 3900 too. Aside from the three of us working together on this page, there is no evidence of sockpuppetry, and you would do well to leave that alone. You aren't exactly innocent on this article, between violating WP:3RR and votestacking. Stop trying to attack the editors and focus on the content. And try to come up with a decent reason for why the comments section should be included. That's what we're arguing about, isn't it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to explain what the guidelines are to suit your own craving that this is consensus. The deletion of articles are meant many areas such as templates, parts of articles, etc. (It also points to the updates) So don't try to twist and turn the issue here. This is not the first time I am hearing the blogs argument. The certain someone with who did the most reverts said the same old hat story. I am pointing to the fact that many of the references are from official media sources. Why don't you revert DrMargi's last change and see can have a look at the references, instead of falling for that lame reason of blogs are not reliable sources? Of course everyone knows blogs are not reliable. Oh! And why don't you go Communist China and read the China Daily? Tell me whether that it is (reliable) or not. Votestacking, my foot! Didn't I message you and your cronies on your discussion pages about commenting on this discussion and voting on this issue. Your trumpeting the same thing over and over like 13^2, DrMargi. Doesn't make a make convincing argument does it about not being sock puppets does it? And look at the history, how many reverts did you do? How many reverts did our serial reverter do as well? How many reverts did the 13^2 do too? Who started the personal attacks in the first place? Making all the stupid accusations about SP, etc. Just read the famous serial reverter's logs. Roman888 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"The deletion of articles are meant many areas such as templates, parts of articles, etc." No, it is not. I'll throw the same quote as you that you just did at us: Stop trying to explain what the guidelines are to suit your own craving that this [does not have] consensus. That page is for articles. Period. When it comes to actual content, discussion is king to deciding what article content stays and you aren't doing much here but pointing fingers. So please discuss if you're going to continue to push this.

None of us broke 3RR since you started here (I never have; I don't know about the others) so telling us to look at how many reverts we've all done is irrelevant. I've probably made hundreds of reverts during my time here on this and many other pages; that doesn't mean I'm violating anything. Again, no one has ever pointed fingers at you so why on earth are you getting so defensive about it and projecting that assumptive blame onto people who are all clearly separate editors who aren't violating anything (to anyone not emotionally invested in this article, anyway)? I highly suggest you discontinue going down this path and go back to discussing the inclusions.

Again, why, if you're so determined to get some formal process here, won't you take it to dispute resolution? Is there some underlying fear that maybe we're right on this and you'd rather just fight it out until we give up? I mean, really, if you're so convinced that we've not reached a true consensus, the information should stay, and that you have plenty of policies and guidelines to support inclusion, why are you still bickering here instead of getting administrators and other neutral users involved in something that would be more binding? It just makes no sense at this point. --13² 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um.. in full disclosure, Drmargi violated 3RR on Sept 6.(I misread. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)) But warnings were handed out and the edit war stopped. Is it worth doing an WP:RFC for this issue? Seems like it's gone on long enough, and no one is willing to budge. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if she had or had not, but I knew she quit after she was warned. I was probably going to put up an WP:RFC if the next message from Roman again refused to go to WP:DR. It's gotten beyond ridiculous at this point. --13² 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't -- I didn't even edit the article on Sept. 6. I had three reverts on Sept. 5 (one more would have been a violation, and I was watching the count), but the one before it was on Sept. 3. I was OK as affirmed by an admin -- the warning was for being in danger of a violation, not for making one, and Roman received the same warning. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw the erroneous comment.

I don't see any point in doing an WP:RFC. We've still got consensus above, and one editor making a frenzied argument against it. Someone tried that on the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares article, and it got us nowhere. Consensus is still clearly to leave the updates out, and the one editor arguing against it has yet to mount a solid, policy-based argument to back up his position. It's time to stop indulging whatever mission he's on and call a halt to this. History suggests he doesn't understand how WP:RFC works any better than WP: CONSENSUS, and I'd expect it to have little or no effect, as was the case before. Drmargi (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, I think if we were to indulge the user at least this once (the RFC), we'd have more of a basis to show Roman's intentions if he continued to fight it after that point. I'm not against not doing it though as I don't feel it will solve much. I'm torn on it. :/ --13² 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever the group wants, and have no strong feelings in either direction. You do make a good argument about showing intentions, which has to be weighed against history. I won't stand in the way if either of you wants to go forward with it. Drmargi (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a potential RFC discussion in my sandbox here (that would be moved here). Since this is so long-winded and separated by multiple sections, I wanted to condense it to show A)the consensus, B)the reasons we made that decision, and C)direct impartial users to the current discussion without any elaboration so they can build their own opinion once they've read it. Let me know what you think. --13² 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought this out for the sake of visibility. You might want to review the discussion in the UK article and refer readers there as well. Another rationale for removing them was to align to the article for the original show, which never had updates (discussion goes back to 2007, and is in the archive, if I remember correctly.) A good bit of Roman's activity here is most likely governed by his inability to get updates added to the UK article. When I removed the updates, I also did a series of small edits that aligned the introductions of the two articles as well. Drmargi (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the alignment material. If you want to change anything to it, feel free to. --13² 18:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a good edit to strengthen a bit of the language, make a small clarification on the UK article, and add a few details. If it's too much, feel free to change it as you see fit. Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's a bit long. We don't need all that text about the Wiki policies. Keep it short and simple - I think people will be more inclined to comment if there's less to read. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the policies. That's the substance of the argument against them on both the US and UK articles. There are other ways to tighten it.Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also throw in that, if this is more about Roman's behavior, as opposed to the information, you may consider taking it to WP:ANI instead of WP:RFC. Just thought I'd toss it out there. --13² 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but it's also difficult to separate the two. Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent again) I don't think this is disruptive enough to take to ANI - yet. Here, let's assume good faith for a little bit and pose the question to everyone involved: if we were to have an RFC and the outcome was the opposite of what you want, would you be willing to accept the consensus? Personally, I would. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just threw ANI out there since there's so many retaliatory accusations of us being socks/spa/vandals by this user (despite zero evidence of such) and so little actual discussion about the section. I do agree with you overall though. --13² 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not at ANI yet. I always see that as a last resort. He's violating WP:CIVIL on a regular basis, and throwing around a collection of retaliatory accusations, but it's not hard to see where that's coming from. This is the second go-round with him, and I'm optimistic that if we stop responding to him first, then keep the RfC ready if things don't settle down soon, that we'll be OK in a couple days. If you know anything about extinction theory, withholding feedback is the most effective method for getting an attention-seeking problem to stop. Drmargi (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --13² 00:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I prefer the carrot and stick approach to something more heavy-handed. Drmargi (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all the person who started making unwarranted accusations (sockpuppets, etc) was none other than the serial reverter. If he wants to make accusations of violating WP:CIVIL then he should stop defending himself and start to look back at his own reverts. You don't need to go far and look at the histories of both this article and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares where there were numerous reverts done by him. He kept on harping that there was consensus, after removing the restaurant updates on the other article and then this article. Someone comes along to add the updates, he will then proceed to remove the updates claiming consensus. Thinking he had won this argument in the other article, he comes over to this article and tries the same old tactic, claiming consensus.

I have already given you some ideas why the consensus was not reach in the first place. There was no survey done. If you talking about not a democracy, then that is a flimsy excuse to bypass the survey and gauge how many people will want to keep and retain the restaurant updates. Then please allow me to be WP:BOLD and reinstate the surveys then. But I didn't and would like the survey to take place because of I really want people to talk about this issue instead of making all those unwarranted reverts while claiming WP:Consensus and denying updates of the restaurants.

This is a sampling of the references I got from one of the reverts done:

• [[1]]
• [[2]]
• [[3]]
• [[4]] - This is one of the restaurant websites
• [[5]]

Now those of you who keep harping that blogs are not reliable sources of information, tell me then if some of these references can be used. Don't give me your subjective mumbo-jumbo stating some newspapers are untrustworthy than others. If its a blog reference, then by all means get rid of the ref. If its a news ref, then keep the updates. You don't throw the baby out of the tub together with the bath water.

Now the serial reverter thinks I have a grudge against him. That is far from the case. Life is too short for having grudges. I have pointed out that Roman888 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean that, if we did an RFC, you wouldn't go along with the outcome? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, after having read this like three times, I have no idea who or what Roman is fussing about. I say we go along with the RFC. If Roman continues to fight, well, go upward in dispute resolution. --13² 04:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then create a new section and toss up whatever text you had on your sandbox. May as well get the ball rolling. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --13² 04:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping a bit of extinction was in the cards. Oh, well. It's disappointing to see this kind of behavior reinforced yet again, but we'll roll with it. Drmargi (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

13^2, I am not interested in your sandbox discussion, until the updates have been reinstated. Once that has happened I will support having this go to dispute resolution. I will then have gathered enough evidence to support the keeping the notes column and prevent the serial reverter from removing everything like. Roman888 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, should this ever be taken to higher levels of dispute resolution, being this tendentious will not reflect well upon you. I urge you to try and work with us here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to take this to dispute resolution only after when the updates have been reinstated. The references which comes from blog websites will be removed and the other updates remain. In the first place the updates should have been removed wholesale, only the ones which had blog references. Roman888 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late, Roman. We've already gone to step one of dispute resolution with an RFC, which you can see below. We have given you almost a full week to show us reasons to keep the updates and all you've done so far is throw up a few websites and bicker about "serial reverters" and other such nonsense. The reliability of sources is not the only reason for removal so finding a handful of sources is just the tip of the iceberg. Ignoring those other reasons doesn't make them go away, no matter how hard you try. --13² 12:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all I disagree with your actions of taking this to dispute resolution without reinstating the updates and notes. The updates should have been reinstated first, so that the status quo should have been maintain. You could have brought back the updates and notes, and just removed notes which have blog references. I did not start the bickering, for your information. Accusations were flung at me by the serial reverter, and a few others including yourself. I don't understand you, as 1 or 2 posters have stated the reliability of the sources was one of their main reasons for deciding whether to keep or remove the updates. Also some of the notes gave information of the name change of the restaurants such as Dillon's during the episode to Punima. Unless you have watched the shows, you won't noticed that kind of thing. I think your the one ignoring the evidence and should take a good hard long look at yourself. Roman888 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much finishes any assumption of good faith. All or nothing is a tendentious approach to this. Drmargi (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The version of the page with the updates is linked to in the RFC. That is all that is necessary. We do not have to bend to your wishes before entering dispute resolution, especially when you keep ignoring all the other reasons for removing the udpates. Again, the reliability of the sources is not the sole reason they were removed and you have patently refused to discuss any of the other reasons. The name change is probably something that should be included (as it happened on the show), but it is not a reason to bring back the updates. Don't muddle those two issues. Also, no one accused you of anything. Period. We accused Mkland only because of their extremely suspicious behavior. Your defensiveness over the accusations of Mkland are both out-of-line and revealing. --13² 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look you first of all are trying to defend the removal of the updates. The updates and notes sections should have stayed first before we conduct the dispute resolution. Why should I also bend to your wishes to have a dispute resolution when the notes column and updates have been removed? You also make the claims that I have not discuss the other reasons which you claim. I have already talked to some of the posters regarding their reasons for keeping or removing the posters. The name change is one of the main reasons for keeping the notes column. The other reasons were about the verifiability of the references. Please enlightened me with your other reasons before you make any accusations that I have not discuss your other countless reasons for keeping the updates. Roman888 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Dillons/Purnima issue can be handled with a footnote, and is easily done. There was no point earlier because the edit warring by anon IP's started immediately after the changes were made. Please try not to read anything sinister into that, Roman.

I, for one, am not interested in playing the "who threw the first stone" game with someone who sees themselves as blameless. I would also urge you to reread the discussions both here and on the UK article and see who has consistently violated WP:CIVIL and repeatedly uses name-calling to identify editors before you point any fingers elsewhere. Drmargi (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember any assumption of good faith was thrown out by you guys in the first place. Who is Mkland? Who is 13^2? Who is AnYong? I don't spent time dwelling on who is who like some of you guys? I went to many of the editors discussion pages and asked for their comments and I see you plastering and begging them to defend your removal of the updates. Your defensiveness of the your reverting behaviour is all the more telling, but I have already stopped talking about that for your information. In the first place the removal of the Notes section shouldn't have been done wholesale because of the reason whereby updates with the blog references or verifiable sources. You also have violated WP:CIVIL and done wholesale edit warring and serial reverting. (the proof is in the histories of both pages) And you accused me of having grudges against you in order to side-strack from the the discussion. On top of that I had to endure my discussion page being vandalised, which I assumed had something to do with the updates discussion and some sinister forces. Roman888 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should we go with this now? Roman is clearly refusing to discuss this issue in any way whatsoever unless it's on his terms, he's still throwing out false accusations, and is still being incredibly tendentious. I just don't know where we should go now and my tolerance is wearing thin. --13² 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have three options. We wait him out, we go to the next step, or we stop responding to him and remove his motivation to continue these posts. I prefer the last because it removes the reinforcement of his tendentious behavior. STOP RESPONDING until he is willing to play by the rules. Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to stop feeding the trolls. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --13² 19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all I have stated the reasons for the updates and notes section to be reinstated. 13^2 keeps on harping that I am refusing to discuss the issues further and continues to throw a number of guidelines and rules just to suit her argument. I have already said I was willing to hear you list down all your reasons why the note column and updates should be removed as stated in the few posts before this.

DrMargi, sorry if I am being tendentious as you claim, eventhough I have to answer about 3 of the posters here who are tag-teaming me. But you still don't understand where I am getting it and that is why I have to keep on repeating myself. You keep on harping that I am throwing out false accusations and not playing by the rules. You also started this in the first place and I also am at fault because that's my nature.

Is it so unreasonable to reinstate the updates first before taking this to dispute resolution? 13^2, you keep on saying that I am not playing by the rules, but you don't even want to compromise a little on your side. The problems(reverting, edit warring) originally started when the updates were removed and I want the situation to revert to that period.

Annyong, I think you are not being reasonable at the same time. Either you don't want to find a solution to this problem and discuss this further. I gathered in a few posts earlier that your concern was about the verifiability of the updates. Did you look at the reference links and check whether they were alright? Roman888 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Don't see why the updates should be removed. There are plenty of television articles in Wiki that have updates. Mkland (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is your first edit in non-user space. Thanks for the vote. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone who knows how to edit Wikipedia? Check. Someone who knows about userboxes and editing their user page? Check. Someone who actually knows what a talk page is despite "only being here for one day"? Check. This is the only edit outside user space? Check. Looks like an SPA to me. --13² 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia understand that several of their rules and regulations do not conform to the principles of fairness and democracy." Wow. What a shock. A check user may be in order. --13² 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been consistently over-ruled by HelloAnnyong in the IBDP who has sided with a lynch mob at that page and his/her sudden appearance here, I concur with the assessment that 'Roman88 did indeed WP:canvass the talk pages of other editors as I have HelloAnnyong's talk page watched. Personally, this article is nothing but a couple of tables and some one sided "reception" and if restoration of "updates" requires yet another table to be placed on the page, I think it would just junk it up further. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Remove. I've been watching this article for months, and it's been an endless stream of people using blogs and other reliable sources to back up statements about the restaurants closing. I did manage to find some reliable sources to back up some of the statement, but I think having the column there is just an invitation for WP:OR. If someone on the other side could come up with an argument for inclusion other than "I like it" and "Other pages have it", I'd be interested to see that. But until that happens, I'll vote for removal. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the combatants who keep fighting to mold the article in their own image. Wikipedia has rules and Wikipedia is democratic. If someone has added a useful contribution, let it stay. End the reversion war, fought just for the sake of a silly turf battle.Landroo (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If you ask me, it's about time to update everything (including the status of the restaurants) Badjsp (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines are you using to support this? As it stands, it looks like your vote is simply "It's interesting", which is not a good reason for inclusion. --13² 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Badjsp is one of the original editors canvassed by Roman888 we were to disregard per User:Parsecboy Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's sourced, it's nice to note the information, and it provides more detail into the article. I really don't see a problem with them. Wizardman 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman, I notice you've never edited here before, or at least not any time that could reasonably be termed recently. Roman888 is attempting to obfuscate the original issues that lead to the consensus to remove the updates by attempting to make this all about him. In fact, we have had a long and active history of WP:OR, unsourced and unreliable updates. Even when they're sourced, the updates have proven to be inaccurate far too often. Moreover, sourced does not equate with either notable or encyclopedic, and that's the issue here. Adding updates because they're "nice" information is tantamount to a license to add any piece of fancruft (and that's really all they are, based on the arguments mounted thusfar) that someone thinks is "nice." Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please read the reasons I posted here in rebuttal to 13^2's arguments (policies and guidelines) against reinstating the updates - Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#RFC_for_inclusion_of_restaurant_updates and also please stop sidetracking the issue further with accusations of canvasing or votestacking. I have already message all the contributors to this article including those who are against posting the updates. eg DrMargi, 13^2, Annyong, Parsecboy, etc. I would appreciate if some of you stop badgering the new posters and contributors to this discussion with your guidelines and policies arguments. I feel in the next few days or weeks ahead we will get more people weighing in on the issue of the updates and notes column. I am pretty certain we will eventually have the updates reinstated. Roman888 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you here, Drmargi, but you don't need to be a previous editor here to voice your opinion. Further, since Wizardman is an admin and an active member of the Arbitration Committee, his opinion is more than welcome. And it is one that I am taking into consideration. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would care to reread my post again, you'll find I did not suggest in any way that Wizardman had no right to express his/her opinion, nor did I suggest it was unwelcome or should not be taken into consideration. Rather, I provided some additional background I felt was important given the discussion at hand before responding to his/her argument. My opening sentence simply set the context for my doing so. Nothing more. Drmargi (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, perhaps I read more into your opening line than was needed. But I don't really think it necessary to keep stating what the issues here are. Anyone can look at this page and read both sides of the argument. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No perhaps about it. It's all in how you care to approach a response to any given poster, I guess. One thing for certain; it doesn't merit a comment, much less this much debate. Drmargi (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. Parsecboy: if by canvassing, you mean his comment on my talk page means I should be disregarded, you are wrong. I'm of the opinion that any and all updates for restaurants are more suited to a Wikia for the subject as opposed to on Wikipedia due to lax restrictions to such a thing on the former, an opinion I've held since the RfC on RKM (when Madchester, if I remember correctly, made such a comment, which I agreed with) and an opinion that, in regards to posting updates on Wikipedia, runs against Roman's (but not entirely). If I had known that this discussion was going on without that post (meaning Roman's post on my talk page), I would have joined in anyway. I shouldn't have my credibility removed because of another editor's actions. What makes you sure that was why he messaged me in particular? For all I, or anyone else, knows, Roman may have gathered me here because I ran an RfC on the RKN page to settle the matter, which ultimately led to airdates being added (not to mention I was one of the people involved in the UK version of this type of discussion). Plus, I never "departed" this page. The only post I made, to my knowledge, on this KN page was on an unrelated matter (about Casa Roma). Sorry if I came off as blunt, but when someone says I should be faulted for someone else's actions, I get miffed. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC for inclusion of restaurant updates

Should the table of episodes have another section for updates about the status of each restaurant? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the version of the page that is being disputed.

As can be seen throughout the discussions here, there have been a significant number of issues with the reliability of sources with regard to the restaurant updates. It was eventually decided in the discussion here that the updates should be removed for the following reasons: original research, verifiability, reliable sources, indiscriminate information, and journalism, as well as the fact that this article is about the show (which focuses on Ramsay and his efforts), not the restaurants. Consequently, updates about the restaurants on the show are only tangentially related and not notable in and of themselves.

The decision was to remove the updates, but add into the reception section any information that was released specifically about the show that also talked about Ramsay's effect on the restaurants, rather than including updates in the actual chart. It was also decided to make this change to align this article with Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, where they have had many similar discussions. Consensus on the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares article has always been to remove updates for the reasons cited above. (here, an RFC, and here).

For the most part, everything was quiet with a few people reverting the removal, but none willing to discuss the issue here. Roman then arrived, reverted the removal several times and then started the discussion here and here, but has failed to provide a solid argument in favor of the updates with a basis in Wikipedia policy.

And this is where we are at an impasse. Please help and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirteen squared (talk • contribs) 04:26, September 10, 2009

Let me state for a fact that I have provided some points to rebut the argument made by 13^2 who brought up a number of guidelines from the Wikipedia rulebook. I will list down the information one at a time so everyone can understand what I am getting at instead of saying I don't have a solid argument.

Original research - Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. Now I have provided several reference links that reveal the status of the restaurants after the show has end. These are from various mainstream media sources and articles from the web. Here they are published, contain facts and arguments and there is no iota of speculation.

Verifiability - whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Some of the sources I gave come from reliable sources such as the Herald, Local Pioneer and from restaurant websites themselves. You don't need to look for verifiability that far to ascertain that the sources are right.

Reliable sources - should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The examples of the sources I have provided are actual newspaper publications that have a presence on the web which have written articles about the closures of the restaurants. I have already stated that blog websites are not reliable sources and should be removed from the article.(in certain countries news media websites do carry articles that are derived from blog websites. Certain blog websites are considered more reliable than mainstream media sources that are heavily censored by the government of that country)

Indiscriminate information - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. First of all the updates of the restaurants are not part of an indiscriminate source of information as claimed by some of the editors here. Here the updates merit their own notability because there are people who are interested in followup information to what has happened to the restaurants since the show has ended. This is a difference of opinion where some editors here don't see any notability or merit to updates, while some do.

Journalism - here this argument diverges on some points of policy and practice. People have noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear. The updates also do fall under this category. Newspapers or journals from cities where the restaurants are based have previously published the updates of the restaurants.

The stated argument the the articles is only about the show itself has certain flaws. First of all you just have to look at the various movie or tv show articles in Wikipedia to do a comparison. Take for example the movie Watchmen where there is a subsection talking about the Music. Not all the music was in the movie itself but is a tie-in. Also there is information such as the DVD release detailing extra information and back stories for the movie. Or just take a look a something closer to this article - Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares#Libel - whereby it is stated that there is a legal suit against Gordon Ramsay and talk about Ramsay being awarded damages. This all happened after the show.

Ignore the rules- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia or its articles, ignore it. This about sums it up nicely for many of us who live by the rules all our lives. I am not saying that we live through anarchy but we some rules will need to be ignored. The whole argument regarding the keeping the following updates and the notes column started when the updates were removed. The wholesale removal of the notes column shouldn't have been carried out in the first place. Roman888 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As I also stated on the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares page - this article here is about a television program. Said restaurant updates are appropriate for the respective restaurant articles. (Likewise, Ramsay is the constant on the program, but we don't go off tangent with his pre/post KN accomplishments - that belongs in his own article) However, these featured restaurants lack invdiudal notability to merit their own articles - and the KN/RKN articles became the place to add indefinite restaurant updates. That's not permissible per WP:NOT#NEWS.

If there are news articles describing overall restaurant statuses with regards to the television program then that can be incorporated into the body of the article. --Madchester (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

N.B.... the Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares#Libel section in the RKN article is permissible, since the libel case involved accusations about alleged fakery within an episode of the television program. --Madchester (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record I didn't get much chance to debate and discuss with Madchester in the discussion page of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares of the issues about updates because of time constraints. I like to address that part where Madchester stated that it is not permissible to add the restaurant updates as it conflicts with the WP:NOT#NEWS policy or guideline. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. In that statement itself we can derive the a few things. One is the notability of the event concern whereby here we are looking at the updates. This is a subjective matter as one side can say the updates merits a mentioned, while the other says its doesn't. Now it says not all events warrant a encyclopedia article of their own, but we can deduce that the updates on their own can be incorporated into the main article, without having their own article. This doesn't contradict the notability argument as I am trying to look at amalgamating all the information into one topic. I point to this subject matter - Wikipedia:News articles whereby it says - Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. Now I have given proof that the updates are verifiable (news references), significant (news articles from mainstream media websites) and of interest (we have a number of posters here that would like to know of the outcome and results of the restaurants). Roman888 (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Dragons'_Den_(UK)#Successful_pitches, it shows entrepeneurs who received investment from the Dragons on a particular episode. However, there's no updates on how each entrepeneur has fared since that initial investment. Some pitches that have staked individual notability outside the show (Reggae Reggae Sauce, Bedlam cube, etc.) have updates on their respective articles - not on the Dragon's Den article.

Likewise, individual restaurant updates belong in their respective restaurant articles - not on the Kitchen Nightmares article. Just because these eateries lack the notability for a wiki article mean that you can simply cram their updates on the KN article. As I suggested previously - transwiki or blog it elsewhere. --Madchester (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. (i.e., Wikipedia:News articles) applies to articles about news events like elections, disasters, etc. That essay is a barometer on whether a news story can qualify for a full-fledged Wiki article and not about the appropriateness of adding routine news coverage to an existing article - that's covered under WP:NOT#NEWS. --Madchester (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. While it's possible to source them (something I've proven constantly) and to get the sources from mainstream media, that's not the question. The question is how ENCYCLOPEDIAC the updates are in regards to the restaurants. I agree with putting any possible updates to restaurant pages, but of the restaurants Ramsay has helped, only a select few (Walnut Tree Inn, Purnima, Seascape, Secret Garden, and MAYBE the Black Pearl) have nearly enough information on their own terms to merit inclusion as individual articles (in order: Franco Terrutio (sp?), the chef here, was among the first true UK "celebrity chefs"//the history behind both the episode's airing and the history after the episode (a lawsuit filed against a prominent building firm due to construction affecting turnout)//Oldest restaurant in its town//Previously made the news when Frankie Valli's wife slapped one of the staff (a stretch)//Became infamous for the numerous threats and rants made on its webpage as well as on various news sites). Even among these, only two (Walnut Tree Inn and Purnima) truly qualify as "notable" on their own terms, the former because of its past, and the latter because its broken out of the notability that the show provided. The other restaurants are nowhere near as notable. Also, if Wikipedia viewers are interested in the updates, why can't they just browse the internet for them? If they want to see that Mixing Bowl closed, just hit Google and type "Mixing Bowl closed". In general, I stick by what I said before (move the updates onto a Ramsay Wikia where restrictions are lax and keep them off Wikipedia unless it's sufficiently notable (in the way the Bonaparte's lawsuit was). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up on that, I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies here. Something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unrelated to the subject - I agree that most of the information presented in that table doesn't really fit into an article about the TV series, because it's unrelated information about the restaurants, that has nothing to do with the series. For example, the reference for the Dillion's closure even says right in the caption "Nearly two years after it appeared...". If a restaurant closed TWO YEARS after being on the show, what relevance does that have to the show itself? How long do we keep watching these restaurants? 50 years from now, will we still be following the last couple restaurants and reporting on this article if/when they finally close their doors? I'd certainly hope not, because at that point it's completely irrelevant. Cut that column completely, it's just a cruft magnet. --Maelwys (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point raises a further one that is yet another argument against inclusion of updates: by virtue of their inclusion, the updates connote a 1-to-1 correspondence between the restaurant's closure and Ramsay's activities, leaving Ramsay culpable -- the British "News of the World" tried to do just that in a bright-yellow article designed to make Ramsay look like a restaurant killer a couple years back. Yet careful reading of the few sources that reliably discussion restaurant closures make clear most failed to build on what Ramsay did, and instead, slid back into their old ways (J Willy's being one of the notable few who stuck with Ramsay's changes, but couldn't sustain them in the current economy and chose to close) in a fairly short period of time. Now we open a Pandora's box of another sort: how do we reliably determine which restaurants closures are associated with Ramsay's activities versus time, managerial incompetence, taxes, debts, the lousy economy, or 101 other things that affect restaurants on shaky ground, and craft a WP:NPOV presentation of the restaurant closures that represent how the closures followed on from what Ramsay did. If a case can be made at all for including updates, it has to be tempered so as to reflect only those closures that follow directly on from what Ramsay did for the restaurants, and sourced reliably. Frankly, I don't see how it can be done.

Couple that with the fact the only arguments in favor of inclusion presented are that they are "nice" that they "add to the article" (i.e. they add bulk) and that some are "sourced" (which doesn't raise them to an encyclopedic standard), and the absence of any substantive, policy-based arguments for their inclusion, I don't see how the updates can be justified. Drmargi (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a really good point that I hadn't even considered yet. Neither Ramsay or the show caused any of these restaurants to close. By having the updates on this article, instead of individual restaurant articles, we would essentially be assigning blame directly to Ramsay's efforts and the show, which is patently untrue. --13² 21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. We've had updates saying Hannah and Maso's (sic) closed, but it's documented in the media that the changes made in the restaurant had been reverted. Same goes for restaurants such as Secret Garden and Black Pearl (which apparently kept some of the changes if the website (before it became THE site for anti-Ramsay rants) were any indication). Plus, it's documented that Mixing Bowl closed due to the head chef seeking an opportunity that the economy wasn't much of an effect (as opposed to keeping the restaurant open at the time). The last plausible cause that can be determined is Purnima: just before the closure, Mohammad filed a lawsuit against a huge construction company (?) saying noise and work next door was driving restaurant-goers away. Unless reversions, the economy, and construction can be blamed on Ramsay, then the updates shouldn't be added to this page. My position is now a firm, solid keep them off of Wikipedia. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument that HelloAnnyong brought up. What is not noted in that argument are the wikipedia articles should not be: Plot-only description of fictional works, News reports. Again I state that the updates of the closures of the restaurants whether they are in receivership, etc has been reported in the media. That's not fiction for you. Also you point out the news report argument, but that goes back to the notability argument which is subjective. That's all the more reason to bring back the updates.

Regarding 13^2's argument about the Ramsay or the show were not the cause of any of the restaurants to close. That is her personal opinion and can't be construed as WP:NPOV. Who are we to say that Ramsay wasn't the cause of the restaurants' closure? The owners got their restaurants on the show and after the end result was foreclosure for some of the restaurants.

Hurricane brought up a good point about taking out the basis for the updates such as reversions and the economy. If Ramsay's actions such as the remodeling of the restaurants and changing the menu of the restaurant was the cause of the closure, then by all means these updates should be included. Not to mention that name change for some of the restaurants which actually happened in the show itself. Roman888 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Who are we to say that Ramsay wasn't the cause of the restaurants' closure? The owners got their restaurants on the show and after the end result was foreclosure for some of the restaurants." And that's your conclusion. Just because Event A precedes Event B doesn't mean that the former caused the latter to occur. Serious WP:SYN issues with your argument. And that's the danger of including these updates 2/5/10 years after the airing of the program. It implies that Ramsay's visit had a negative/positive effect on each restaurant, when we're not suppose to be forming our own original research/commentary. As I also brought up on the RKN discussion, why should only closures be mentioned? What about awards won? changes in ownership? hiring of new chefs and staff? changes in cuisine style? The problem is these restaurants only make the news when they close - thus updates are undoubtedly skewed towards those of the negative variety... leading to a slew of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE issues regarding restaurant updates.

As I brought up in the RKN discussion, we don't include these "where are they now" sections for other television show articles as they fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Notable post-show events belong in the respective articles of the participants. Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings appeared on Jeopardy!, yet their post-show events are detailed in their respective articles. Susan Boyle and Diversity's upcoming performances are listed not on any of the Britain's Got Talent articles, but rather on their respective biographies. Likewise, what happens to Seascape/The Mixing Bowl/etc. after KN belong in their respective articles. As the restaurants lack the notability to have Wiki articles, I've recommend (again) that you move those updates to a KN wiki or blog. --Madchester (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you, but I just wanted to thank you. Seriously, thank you. You said this all so much better than I would have been able to. The following article is also a very useful page to explain the issue with linking Ramsay to any of the closings: Correlation =/= Causation. --13² 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Correlation =/= causation is a basic statistical principle. We don't even have correlation (which is a mathematical relationship, if we're technical about it) here. At best, we have a loose connection, dozens of mitigating circumstances, and an attempt at establishing guilt by association. What doesn't pass the laugh test is the notion that it's not up to us to say Ramsay didn't cause the closure, as though that should be the default assumption. Why cluttuer up the process with evidence and reliable sources? Just assume Ramsay done it, then use that to justify the notes. Talk about grasping at straws. Drmargi (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me address Madchester's arguments about WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. WP:POV - must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources I don't see any issue with that statement pertaining to the updates if they are published by reliable media sources from the internet and are without bias, etc. WP:UNDUE - Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views Now with that statement you can't state that the majority view is for the removal of the updates. The number of people who support keeping the updates and removing the updates is evenly divided.

I agree that we should also include the awards won for any single episode (eg. Emmy Awards), the changes in ownership, name changes etc other than the updates. This is all the more reason to bring back the notes column. The hiring of new chefs and staff can be mentioned like in the case of Punima where they hired a new Indian chef during the filming of the episode. The "where are they now" argument can be circumvented by this point Ignore the rules if this rules prevents the article from being improved upon. Misc information that is considered notable should not be precluded if they are verifiable or from reliable sources. Roman888 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't some vote, where the majority "get their way". Wiki doesn't work that way. You're recycling the same arguments that failed to sway consensus on the RKN page. We're using the same arguments that have been held to be consensus on the RKN discussion. As both shows follow the same format, you've yet to sway consensus the other way in the KN RFC. Also, please don't play WP:IAR as some trump or "get of of jail free" card.

Again, if these updates are as "notable" as you claim, then these individual restaurants featured on the show should already have their own Wiki articles. But they don't - none of them have found notability outside the series. And that doesn't make it excusable to use the KN article as some dumping ground for every and all detail about these resatraunts since the show. --Madchester (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

IAR does not mean what he thinks it means. :| --13² 17:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just one of a series of misunderstood rules: see the cites regarding fiction writing, NPOV and UNDUE above. We could also question the assertion of even division of opinion, but that's a Pandora's box best left unopened, especially given the enumerated issues with the so-called updates that are really just an unstructured hit-list of restaurant closings ad nauseum. Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Besides the NPOV thing, UNDUE is a content issue, not a discussion issue, so evenly divided opinions on this page is moot anyway. Twisting the meanings isn't going to gain supporters and throwing out the IAR card, when it's quite clearly being misunderstood, just makes the argument hold even less ground. --13² 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

True, true. The whole notion that it's NPOV to assume he did cause the closures, absent any evidence to that effect is just ludicrous, as is using content policy to somehow govern how to interpret consensus. Drmargi (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV default: if it's negative or implies a negative connotation and cannot be completely sourced, it has to go. Why is that so hard to understand? --13² 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Negative or positive; either way, if we assume, it has to go. The "who are we to say" argument holds only if it's an argument for neutrality. If it's not, it doesn't hold. Adding closures implies Ramsay responsibility, and that's not neutral. We have to be able to source his responsibility, and that ain't gonna happen. Restaurants rarely close for one reason; most were in desperately hot financial water before he got there, and it's silly to think that his intervention (redecoration, redesigned menu) were the reason for closure. At most, they're a contributing factor, but we can't assume IF, WHEN or HOW MUCH. It has to be sourced. So much for "who are we to assume..." Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. --13² 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The point I am discussing in regards to the WP:IAR rule is pertaining to the "where they are now" argument. Madchester has used this argument many times over to buttress the argument for the removal of the updates and notes section. In fact I fail to see how you can back up your "where they are now" argument without going back to or recycling the WP:POV,WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV arguments which has all been address previously. Now I have already stated the following in regards to the updates being verifiable (news and media references), significant (news articles from mainstream media websites) and of interest (we have a number of posters here that would like to know of the outcome and results of the restaurants)

Let me also discuss your issue about the vote which you misunderstood. If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. It is my intention of putting a survey that might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute. While the survey is being conducted I wish for the updates to be reinstated for some of these reasons(eg. verifiable, reliable sources, etc) which I stated above. Now previously the updates and notes column were removed wholesale as to conform with the UK version of Kitchen Nightmares (this was one of the main reasons for their removal). After the removal there were repeated reverts and editing which you can view in the [[6]]. Now if you look at the original discussion there were only 3 people who supported the removal of the updates. 13^2 was the first person to post there with the WP:Notability argument and that was followed by DrMargi who removed the entire notes column. They keep calling and claiming that discussion was consensus. Now I have already posted in that discussion thread as a dissenting view saying that the notes column and updates should remain. There shouldn't be two ways about this argument.

Now the argument for WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V which form the basis for determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles has been addressed. I have laid out points saying that the updates do not conflict with the guidelines. DrMargi has stated "Adding closures implies Ramsay responsibility, and that's not neutral. We have to be able to source his responsibility". Here I am beginning to think that he has done his original research and made her own assumptions. Do we know if it is his responsibility? The owner's? Then there is 13^2's argument about negative connations which can be solved by reading up WP:MNA or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Roman888 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, updates about Topic A belong in an article for Topic A - if they're notable and not indisrciminate/news. They don't belong in an article on Topic B, just because it happens to mention Topic A. David Beckham's Galaxy/Milan/Madrid career belong in his bio article - not the Manchester United article. It's that simple. Replace Topic A with Seascape/Dillon's/etc. and Topic B with Kitchen Nightmares. Done. --Madchester (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

N.B.. "a survey of opinion" is just that - a survey of opinion. Not a vote or head count. --Madchester (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How on earth would that differ from the RfC above? Everything here is opinion; changing the format won't change the weight of opinion expressed. All that this (seemingly endless) discussion makes clear is there is plenty of compelling, policy based reason for the no updates, and precious little to support their inclusion, all of which can be argued against using WP policy. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I like to address that issue about you saying Topic A belongs in Topic A. There is no set rule in Wikipedia stating that a sub-topic needs to have its own article. If I want to put something about David Beckham in the topic main article about Old Trafford, there is no rule prohibiting me from putting that bit of information there. Remember if that bit of information is veriable, notable or of interest, non-indiscrimate, npov then by all means it can go there.

The second thing I like to address about the arguments about consensus saying that the updates should be removed. If there is one dissenting voice (I posted an argument for the updates to stay) against the removal, your argument about consensus is torn to shreds. You keep on talking about WP:NOT#DEM, so it also means that consensus is not there.Roman888 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it unanimity, nor tyranny by the minority. Drmargi (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break

If I want to put something about David Beckham in the topic main article about Old Trafford, there is no rule prohibiting me from putting that bit of information there.

That counter-argument holds no water. Beckham's career with Milan/Madrid/Galaxy/England has no relevance to the Old Trafford article.... let alone his away acomplishments while playing for United. You can mention Beckham's United highlights at OT in the OT article (with due weight), but anything else belongs in his own article. This goes back to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e., Topic A belongs in Article A... Topic B in Article B, etc. We don't add any and every reference to Ramsay's other television programs in the KN article, even though those details may be reliably sourced, and NPOV... etc.

There's something fundamentally flawed when editors who want to keep these updates all argue "it's interesting - i want to know how the restaurant is doing. I want to know if this restaurant is still open." If you want to know if a restaurant is still in business, you should be looking at said restaurant's article!

If you want these updates to stay on Wiki, you should be directing your efforts to proving that Dillons/Seascape/etc. are notable. Then, they can have their own respective articles to detail their respective histories. Barring that, I've already recommended trans-wikiing or blogging said information.

N.B. I've been working on The Amazing Race articles for 5+ years now. In the past, I felt it was appropriate to include post-race updates of each series' contestants. But over time, I recognized that these details were irrelevant to each series. Why did it matter that a team broke up or got married after the Race? They don't change the results of that series or any incidents that occured during filming. While the updates passed WP:RS and WP:NPOV, those were fancruft details at best and failed WP:INDISCRIMINATE. From personal experience, I'm seeing the same fancruft updates in the KN article. --Madchester (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I could add two more examples of updates that fail the fancruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE tests: neither article for the show How Clean Is Your House? nor the article for the show You Are What You Eat include updates on the progress of the individuals involved. They don't even have tables describing the participants' or the issues the programs addressed, which are no more or no less repetitive than what KN addresses. Yet one could level the same arguments in favor of updates: it would be nice to know if the houses stayed clean or the individuals maintained their weight loss. It's no different. So why don't they? It's not the point of the show, which is what the experts do at the time of their visits, and it's fancruft that has a limited shelf life at best. Drmargi (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again let me address some issues about your argument stating that the updates are fancruft or what you claim are falls into the category of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The set criteria for it to be indiscriminate info according to the rules are - Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports or FAQs.

The first 3 points in that argument are not credible and viable reasons for the updates not be included. The News reports

- Unless news coverage of an individual or event goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Notice that the point here raised is WP:NPOV which states the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Your argument for posting these in other Wikia articles or Wikinews has merit, but we can state that by putting the updates or links, people can be led to these Wikia articles and news and find them easily.

Now since you brought up the issue of Amazing Race, let's look at the casting information -The_Amazing_Race_7#Cast Notice that the information written about the contestants borders on your so-called funcraft and is acceptable. Or let's take a look at Old Trafford article where you can see extra Old_Trafford#Records or Old_Trafford#Transport. That gives more weight to the argument that updates should be included, since you claim they are funcraft. My issue is that these updates are more notable and should not be considered funcraft as claim by you. Now you claim some information doesn't have their own articles, but we all know Wikipedia continues to evolve and update itself. Eventually a person will come on and include that article which you say is missing.

Now let me finally address the views of some of those claim they are in the majority(or claim they have consensus, or so they claim). Wikipedia is not a WP:BURO - While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused, WP:IGNORE -If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The rules right now have been misused by some in their argument against keeping the updates.Roman888 (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That "fancruft" material has been removed from TAR7 - note that none of the recent seasons (11 onwards) contain such update material per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's a very tedious process to fix 16+ articles worth of material and it's an ongoing process.

Also, it's grasping at straws to argue that the transport or records set at Old Trafford should be labelled as "cruft".

Again, if these restaurant updates are as notable as you claim - where are the restaurant articles? The lack of those articles is no excuse to put those details here. Maybe you should be that person "come on and include that article" by proving their individual notability. --Madchester (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving away from arguments about other pages, and back to arguments about this page. The argument for including that information is essentially that people see the restaurants on the show, and want to know what they're up to these days, if they're still open, etc. But couldn't the same argument be made for Ramsay? If I see him on this show, and I want to know what he's up to these days, should that information be here? Should this page include information on all the other shows that he's doing right now as well? Why aren't there new episodes of this show on right now? He must be busy. What's he doing? To answer these questions, we'd need to include a big section on Ramsay's life, his other shows, the current season of Hell's Kitchen, and the current status of the restaurant currently featured as a 'prize' on the current season of Hell's Kitchen. Because all of that information is just as important to this article (in terms of getting a 'current update' of things from the show) as the information updates to the restaurants. But obviously we're not going to put all that information in this article, because that would make the article huge and dilute the actual important information. Instead, we make use of hyperlinks to point people towards the relavent information. If I want information on what Ramsay's up to, I follow the link to his page. That page tells me he's currently working on Hell's Kitchen, so I follow the link to THAT page. And so on. Similarly, if I want information about the restaurants on the show, I can follow the links to the appropriate pages. If they don't have pages (because they're all non-notable) then obviously we don't need to know what they're up to anymore (because they're all non-notable). --Maelwys (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, that what's meant by links is internal links to other articles, in this case links to articles about the individual restaurants, NOT links to their personal webpages, which is simply WP:LINKSPAM Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to (the interior links from this article to Gordon Ramsay, and from there to Hell's Kitchen (U.S.), etc. Thanks for clarifying. --Maelwys (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever credibility you had, whether in your dicussions in Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares is gone, MC. Just because I pointed out that there was some extra information in the Amazing Race doesn't mean you have to remove them. Does that mean you are going to backtrack and look up all the Amazing Race articles from Season 1-15 and the Amazing Race Asia as well in order to cover your tracks and back your weakening argument here. If I have added in references from notable and verifiable sources for that information you have removed you would have had a serious argument on your hand. But since you have thought you wanted to be bold in removing that information, how would you feel if I reinstated the notes columns with the updates here, and called for the editors to freeze this article?

Sure we are not going to put all that extra information in one article here. Hell's Kitchen info should go to Hell's Kitchen. The F Word should go to F Word. If we just set the notes column right with just a little bit of information pertaining what has happened to the restaurants (whether the restaurants have been closed, renamed, etc) then it is all suitable. Roman888 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Finn McCool's

Copied from User talk:HelloAnnyong, using this diff.

(Brought to article discussion page from editor's talk page, since there are multiple editors involved now.) Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If my addition is not in the correct place, please let me know.

Otherwise, since it is properly annotated with multiple references, and I feel it adds something valuable to the information about the show, why remove it? It has nothing to do with the discussion of "follow-up", and all to do with the actual episode itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You used a blog as a reference, and blogs are not reliable sources. And where in the second source does it say "In fact, the chef of the restaurant was originally going to be on another Gordon Ramsay show"? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan's Hamptons.com is written in conjunction with Dan's Papers, a print magazine. The article was written by the very person in the show, the so-called 'critic' that caused much controversy at the end of the show. As for my second link, I did in fact goof and link to the wrong one. http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/canned_heat_iHsni5ybqjz9C4hX5RBeTL, the one that is linked to the final credit, states all the facts and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:39, November 4, 2009

Please sign your posts using the link below. Local blogs and papers are not reliable sources, whether tied to a print magazine or not. The claims made by the so-called food critic are highly questionable, particularly given they come in response to some pretty negative comment following her conduct on the program. Moreover, there was no opportunity for the producers to respond to her claims, or that of the original blog. The Stranahan reference is even more problematic - he has long had an ax to grind against Ramsay, and has done so in a long-running blog-based diatribe that was well-debated here when it was current, and long ago determined to be entirely unreliable (Stranahan himself was in the thick of the discussion at the time.) Moreover, there is no attempt at neutrality when presenting this content, as is often the case with background or update edits of this sort: Ramsay and the show are guilty by hear-say evidence alone, which is entirely unacceptable. This kind of after-the-fact face-saving material often pops up after a reality show appearance isn't what a participant expects, and is minimally credible at best, particularly given it rarely appears in the mainstream media. Finally, the inclusion of Brian's unsuccessful try-out for Hell's Kitchen (he didn't turn them down to stay with his family; he was rejected) is interesting, but doesn't really mean much. However, placed as it is with the rest of this material, it is presented in a highly slanted, WP:POV fashion that suggests some sort of conspiracy that cannot be substantiated. Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I just read the New York Post article linked above, and what it says is much different than what Maxq32 is attempting to suggest it says. Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and mention that this is already brought up in the 'reception' section of the article, using this source, though the restaurant isn't named here. --13² 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - there is a mention of Brian Mazzio having tried out (but not been accepted for) Hell's Kitchen. It is also presented in a far more neutral way, rather than linking it to after-the-fact innuendo as was done in the recent edits. Drmargi (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I totally agree. I just thought I'd bring that to attention to all involved, including the user trying to add the recent inclusion, since it was using the same source. --13² 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the discussion regarding the criticism section and in particular, the highly biased work by Lee Stranahan, can be found in the archive, across topics 6 - 10. Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maxq32, let me welcome you to the Kitchen Nightmares censorship brigade. Keep on finding more references and notes about the restaurants involved with the Kitchen Nightmares programme. I am sure the following people or clique will try to censor and revert your changes as it goes against their little world that they have created for themselves. For me I am busy with other edits elsewhere and will be busy counting the number of reverts here and build a case against these mafia thugs. Roman888 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA.... Don't label other editors as being a "censorship brigade", "clique", "mafia thugs", etc. Disagreeing with other editors =/= it's okay to describe other editors in that manner. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, Madchester. Its a gathering of damning evidence and constant reverts by the same bunch of editors. Usually there is one editor that keeps scurrying to the others talk pages and eggs them on. Roman888 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)