Talk:Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recent addition

I just reverted the recent addition as it appeared the article was UK-centric. After finally getting to, literally, the very end, I finally got to the US part of it, which consists of one sentence, one quote, and one word descriptions for the restaurants. I almost reverted my revert, but then decided not to for three reasons.

The first, the article is still extremely UK-centric, which isn't that big a deal, but the US portion is simply an afterthought. The second, there's nothing descriptive there and it feels like they just Googled the restaurant names to see what they could find (which is unreliable). Which leads to the third, nothing in that section is sourced. The fact that it's not descriptive makes me even more wary of where they got their information.

As to the reliability of the source itself, I'm not very sure (though it does appear from the front page to be a gossip site which further worries me), but these are the reasons I kept the revert in place. --13² 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding to your concern, the article is both extremely out of date and fairly inaccurate. Moreover, it's in a tabloid with a questionable reputation - not exactly a reliable source. We've reverted edits sourced by this article in the past. Drmargi (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I Included content from an article in the New York Post. CenterofGravity (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is dated given the status of the restaurant market. But more problematic, your edit is substantively word-for-word and that's plagiarism. Then we get back to all the notability and indiscriminate information issues debated at length, as well as the implicit assumption, which is WP:OR, that Ramsay is directly or indirectly responsible for their closures, none of which can be substantiated. Bottom line: the article is about Ramsay's efforts, not the restaurants, and an update on an arbitrary group of them is neither relevant nor a neutral presentation of the outcomes of his efforts. Drmargi (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, the New York Post is a reliable source. Secondly the article is not dated, it's from August of 2009. Thirdly, the article deals with information that is relevant to the show which makes it suitable for inclusion in this article. CenterofGravity (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, we're referring to this article, right? CoG, the text you added is copied verbatim from the article. You can't do that - it's a copyright violation. Whether or not it's suitable for inclusion does not change the fact that you're violating copyright. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually you reverted what was no longer copied, it was in fact a re-edit. Unless that was a mistake, then you're toting some kind of line that a few users are for some reason adamantly following. CenterofGravity (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You moved the name of the show around the first sentence, and you changed the second one from Location (Restaurant) to Restaurant (Location). WP:PLAGIARISM says "you can avoid any dispute concerning potential plagiarism by: rewriting text completely into your own words, using multiple referenced sources". I think that enough of the original structure of the sentence is there that it still falls under a loose definition of plagiarism. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, everyone, this really shouldn't turn into another edit war. One editor has already hit 3RR on this page, and it's only going to go downhill from here. In reading the discussions we've had in the past, I'm starting to think that there is some way to get restaurant updates in the article. Having another column and info about each restaurant is a bit much, but there are several articles that have stated that a considerable number of the restaurants do end up closing down. It seems to me that something should be said, perhaps in a Legacy section. I think that not stating information like that is sort of whitewashing the article. This article has to be balanced and NPOV, but simply ignoring what multiple sources have stated doesn't seem right. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. You've got two problems to deal with. First, the issue of what the article is about, which is Ramsay, not the restaurants. Second, neutrality. Why JUST closures? And how do you present the closures in such a way as it doesn't create a causal link between Ramsay and the closures. One restaurant closed because the owners repeatedly failed to pay taxes. That had nothing whatsoever to do with Ramsay. You're opening a Pandora's box unless you can find some way to address these issues in a way that limits any updates to what is a direct outcome of Ramsay's intervention. Drmargi (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to stick by what the sources say - that's WP:V. If a reference says that a restaurant closed because they didn't pay their taxes, then we state that here. If the guys at Black Pearl blame Ramsay, then that should be added. We can evaluate each source to make sure that it's properly reliable so as to keep out frivolous claims, but if a half dozen articles draw a connection, then that should be included - otherwise we're accused of pushing a point of view to keep the article happy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sold until I see a presentation of outcomes that emphasizes Ramsay not the restaurants (which precludes the one closed for taxes already), that presents them in a way that meets notability and presents a neutral picture of the outcomes of Ramsay's interventions, which means we include restaurants doing well. If you can do that in a section such as the Legacy one you describe and source it properly, more power to you. I just don't think the sources are out there to do it, and Ramsay's legacy is about a whole lot more than which restaurants closed, especially this long after his visits and in this economy. Drmargi (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeliness is definitely an issue here, and I'm not really sure how to handle it. The solution to this is really an adaptation of WP:TRIVIA, in that you don't want to turn the article into just a list of trivia bits and say "Restaurant X closed on date Y" over and over; it needs to paint a much larger picture. And I'm also not saying that I have the answer. Honestly I'd like to see a proposed solution as well, and I'd open it up to anyone who wants to see such a section included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As though we haven't ground that ax over and over. As you well know, this has been open to others for some considerable time, and all we've and come back to is one conclusion well supported by policy: leave them out. Think about it: just the title Legacy alone denotes a causal link between what Ramsay did and the eventual outcomes of the restaurants. Moreover, is whining by a bunch of guys who made themselves look like idiots on TV really notable, much less a neutral presentation of the outcomes of the Black Pearl, which was already on the brink of bankruptcy and closed far too son for Ramsay's efforts to have had any impact? What about Lela's, which was doing well once he left, but too far in debt to be saved in the time available to the owner? Worse, Ramsay is a lightening rod for biased and tabloid journalism. How much of what said about his shows is really reliable? You can't hide behind what sources say as a way to avoid painting a full, accurate and neutral picture. Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right that the opposing editors here haven't really made a concerted effort to make a case for inclusion - but that doesn't mean that there can't be one. The section could very well come out stating that none of it was Ramsay's fault directly, and that all of those people contributed to their own decline. You're right that he does attract tabloid journalism, which is why all the sources used would have to be reliable. And I believe that using reliable sources will paint a full and accurate picture, because that's all we have. Anything that's not directly stated in sources should not be included here on the grounds that it's original research. And this isn't something falls under common sense, either. You know, the more I discuss this here, the more I feel the urge to challenge myself to write this section. Maybe once I get some free time... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source is presenting information such as restaurant closings, criticism of the show and its host Gordon Ramsey from former restaurant owners that were featured on the show, and even a response from Ramsey himself. The general content of that article should be included and not excluded in the Kitchen Nightmare article under reception. I agree with HelloAnnyong that "We have to stick by what the sources say - that's WP:V". Now if plagarism seems to be the main problem, that can easily be solved. Adding a proper citation and the inclusion of quotations is the logical conclusion. For example the following information can be inserted:

Critic Michael Starr of the New York Post comments, "Of the 13 restaurants in the New York area that Ramsay has visited in the first two seasons of "Nightmares," only five are still in business. The other eight have gone belly up". CenterofGravity (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of my discussion with Drmargi? We're not going to just throw in little bits and pieces like that for a number of reasons. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I"d slap a neutrality tag on that post immediately. It paints the picture that Ramsay was directly at fault for the closures, which of course is what the author is attempting to say via innuendo. But the larger issue still remains: WP:NOTE and WP:JOURNALISM ad well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE all suggest the route to a section that really presents just the outcomes of Ramsay's intervention is a near impossibility, and one that will be very hard to keep up to date. Drmargi (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you can't just have included something like "In addition, one review revealed that at least one restaurant featured in the first season did not actually apply to be featured on the show, but was invited due to the personality of the chef, who had previously applied for Hell's Kitchen. According to the review, the business at the restaurant went up 37% after Ramsay's visit.[11] and not include which can be reworded "Of the 13 restaurants in the New York area that Ramsay has visited in the first two seasons of "Nightmares," only five are still in business. The other eight have gone belly up. And several former owners have blamed Ramsay -- perhaps no one as angrily as Dave Leonard of Black Pearl in Chelsea etc etc."

Why does there have to be a line in the sand? If the show is facing criticism from disgruntled owners, that fact should be included. CenterofGravity (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with CenterofGravity on this point, especially with the NYPost article. NPOV argument has been used by some of the individuals here to censor and white-wash whole sections of the Kitchen Nightmare topic, including the Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares without proper justification. We are here to be neutral to present both points of views. If you have read the previous discussion and arguments on the following points - WP:JOURNALISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTE and the rebuttals of these arguments, these points do not hold up as a reason to delete the previous edits. The previous edit by AnnYong was also unwarranted especially with the removal of an extra column to the tables. Currently consensus is leaning towards reinstating the updates to the restaurants(Just look at the previous discussions on how many people have called for the updates to be reinstated). We have come to a point where this article if it cannot be improved because of the so-called set arbitrary rules by some of the posters here. Maybe we should follow this rule - WP:IGNORE - we need to be sensible here and provide both points of views instead of being cheerleaders for Gordon Ramsay. Roman888 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was trying to coming to an amicable solution here, where we represent the information appropriately and accurately. You don't just get to show up and state which way the consensus is going. There is currently no consensus here as to a solution. If you would read my discussion with Drmargi above, you'd see that we agreed to at least entertain other ideas. Right now the WP:BURDEN is on you to represent the information in a way that all editors can agree on. The columns have been flat out rejected, which leaves prose. And you coming in and reverting again does not help the situation at all. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: if we have to deal with this new inclusion, the least we can do is make it neutral. There is no reason to list which restaurants are open and which closed; people can click on the reference and read for themselves. Also, I have a problem with the article itself - there were twenty restaurants featured in seasons 1 and 2, and the source only says thirteen. As such I've modified the text to reflect that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is fine - it indicates the date of the report (to give context relative to the airdates of the shows) and doesn't draw any conclusions that the show led to the closures. Anything more restaurant-specific is outside the scope of the television show's article...and should be included in the respctive restaurant articles... should they warrant individual notability. --Madchester (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And here we go again. I can solve the what goes in problem easily. I've taken out both segments that don't directly address what the critics have said, which is what the section is for. The other two items, about how a restaurant got in and the closures, are not related to the section, both have reliability issues regardless of their source and taken together, raise neutrality issues, have to go. This article is about what Ramsay does on a TV show during a fixed period of time, not about the unending life of the restaurants, or speculation about how they got on the show. Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HelloAnnyong's recent edit. This issue should still be discussed more closely. Complete removal of the content being discussed is not productive at all, especially since there seems to be an agreement that the reworded content gives a relative content to the airdates of the show. CenterofGravity (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but none of the content fits the section where it's placed at present. Agreeing on misplaced content's wording doesn't solve the larger problem. Until we have consensus on updates, sneaking the content into an unrelated section won't wash, and it's all been removed. Drmargi (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Drmargi on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Break

I recently saw the history about the edits on the page, and I realized something. Dr. Margi made the edit that crossed off both the NY Post reference, and the reference about the one chef's HK application (Brian Mazzio). I've already stated my opinions on the former, but the latter made me think and remember something: Mazzio was not the only chef mentioned as being a possible HK contestant who later appeared in KN; Michel Bardavid was as well. But the problem is that while it has little to do with the article (why not put in a reference on the HK Season 1 page saying Jessica Cabo was on the Ink Inc. team for Extreme Dodgeball? It's a verifiable fact, but not linked), it also has little to do with the stated fact (the increase). While Mazzio did likely apply and got rejected, that doesn't actually correlate to the 37% increase in patronage. In fact, patronage easily increased with exposure. The Alexander Litvenenko case (sp?) put the restaurant he dined in in the spotlight. So not only is the addition unnecessary (it isn't linked with KN, and the only links are the associated crew), but it's alternately explainable (TV/Movie/Book/etc. exposure usu= increased business). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this blew up since I posted it. :O Now that I know the article says 13 restaurants when there were 20 total, it makes me even less willing to include the source as it is factually incorrect from the start. I don't know enough about any of the other articles trying to be used to warrant my involvement. I still stand that updates should not be included unless it can be shown that it was directly linked to Ramsay's visits, not simply because they closed due to, say, not paying taxes. I think the only way I'd consider otherwise is if it's made very clear as to why they closed, but finding reliable sources for that would be incredibly tough. --13² 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid, which removes any reliability right there. Tabs and blogs are widely viewed as unreliable, and it's been a consistent problem that information on restaurant status has come from one or the other consistently. You see these associations: Ramsay comes, restaurant closes, and make a one-to-one causal connection without considering antecedents or contributing factors. That's certainly what tabloid coverage such as the disputed NYPost article want the reader to believe. But there's no way to reliably demonstrate that Ramsay's actions were part of, much less the cause of, the restaurant closure. And that, without ever getting into the issue of neutrality that also looms, renders updates unreliable. Case in point, from the UK show: Charita Jones (aka Momma Cherri). If ever there was an example of a restaurant that closed despite Ramsay's best efforts, it was Momma Cherri's. She took on too much after too short a period of success and lost both her original small restaurant that Ramsay worked on, and the bigger one she bought soon after his visit, But what an update would never cover, and which paints a very different picture of responsibility for the restaurants' closures, is that Mrs. Jones opened a third restaurant, Momma Cherri's Speakeasy that has now failed in less than a year, and is headed for Dublin with, by her own admission, a badly damaged reputation as a restaurant owner. So, who's to blame for the closures? Updates framed as they have been are simply a backhanded way of giving Ramsay all of the blame and none of the credit for these restaurants' fates. Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue of whether the NYPost is reliable is a question for WP:RSN. It seems this issue has been raised there before, and Page Six aside, it does appear to be reliable. On the other hand, it's really a case-by-case basis depending on what you're trying to add to the article. In this case, I believe that the NYPost is reliable as long as we accurately represent what it says. Adding "According to a New York Post article from August 2009" or whatever would help here. But if you want to question the source further, I'd say post at RSN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, if it becomes necessary, but it doesn't address the larger issue. There are factual errors in the article, as noted above. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Factually incorrect from the start? Read the article carefully. It reports on the 13 New York area restaurants and not the 20 that the show has so far featured. CenterofGravity (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

COG, the article is still factually inaccurate. If you're going to push the "New York" area restaurants, you might want to take a look at the handy-dandy charts we have in the article and actually count the New York restaurants. There weren't thirteen. There were ten. If you want to add the New Jersey restaurants, you still only get to twelve. The only way you get to thirteen is if you add the Connecticut restaurant, which is even more of a stretch than including the New Jersey restaurants. Either way though, this still doesn't address the myriad of other issues faced with adding the updates, which you haven't even attempted to address. --13² 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The restaurant in Stamford, Connecticut is part of the New York metropolitan area. This brings the grand total to 13. The NY Post article therefore is not factually incorrect as you claim. CenterofGravity (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong did a good job in rewording the statement about the closures of the restaurants, but that didn't suffice for a certain editor. The NYPost news article as I stated previously is considered reliable, factual, notable, journalist content. To state whether the article is tabloid according to one's whim and fancy doesn't cut any ice. I am sure with the appearance of other articles cropping up about the closures of the restaurants we will have a better argument about reinstating the updates for the restaurants. I am sure this dispute will continue on without respite and I feel that it would be a better situation if the article is frozen and prevented from being edited upon for the next few months. I would prefer a administrator or moderator who is not compromised or has taken a position in this discussion such as Madchester. I am sure other editors like CenterofGravity will appear and present more references about the closures of the restaurants, lending a bigger argument for the reinstatement of the updates. Roman888 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And on what basis is the New York Post, long regarded a tabloid in this country, "considered reliable, factual, notable, [and] journalist[ic]"? You can't just state it and make it so, particularly when doing so is transparently about pushing an edit and an agenda. The burden's on you to substantiate their claims. The reworded entry issue is moot until the content is reliable. You forget, too, that references aren't the sole determinant as to whether updates should be included. You'd do well to review the list of policies such inclusions fail, which have been discussed repeatedly both here and on the UK article. Then be sure you can substantiate a direct link between Ramsay's actions and the closures. Drmargi (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you claim that the New York Post is unreliable take that issue elsewhere. CenterofGravity (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice. The reliability of the source, either in totality or a particular item, can and should first be challenged at the point where the source is used. Both are being challenged here given the factual errors, and are already under discussion here You can't simply say "take it up elsewhere" and restore your edit. You've engaged in the discussion and can't change the rules midstream because it suits you to do so. Drmargi (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only issue and you know it. --13² 06:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out that there aren't any factual errors as claimed in that particular NYPost article and have added another source as well. If you feel that the New York Post which is a reliable source, is indeed unreliable, then this isn't the appropriate place. Take it up with Reliable Sources Noticeboard. CenterofGravity (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And as I have said, and 13sq has agreed, you don't get to change the rules midstream, and you don't get to ignore the multiple issues surrounding the edit under discussion. You say there are no factual errors, we disagree. Discussion of reliability of a source always starts at the point of entry. WP:RSM is available, but not as the first, last and only arbiter of reliability. The discussion has begun here, and you simply cannot bring it to a grinding halt because it suits your position to do so. That flies in the face of the most basic tenets of WP:CONSENSUS. But regardless, there are multiple issues that must be addressed and on which consensus must be reached before there is any possibility of the edit being restored. Drmargi (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, The NY Post article is not factually incorrect. The restaurant in Stamford, Connecticut is part of the New York metropolitan area. This brings the grand total to 13. Therefore, on that basis, 13sq is wrong in the assertion that the source is incorrect. CenterofGravity (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

Folks, I asked about the NYPost article on WP:RSN. Two editors commented and said that the article could be used to make the claim, as long as there's explicit attribution. You can see the thread at this link.

Please note, CoG and Roman888, that just because the source can be used doesn't mean that it should. I still stand by my earlier proposal of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about including the following which uses both the NY Post article and another source as well:

In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open. Former owner Dave Leonard of Black Pearl blamed Ramsay for the closing of the restaurant. Former Hannah and Mason’s owner, Chris Posner comments “With or without the show, I think we would have closed”. CenterofGravity (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Two editors' comments on the board does not constitute consensus that the article source is reliable, nor does it bring the discussion here to an end. All you have is two people's opinions. The larger issue remains that we have no consensus regarding any form of updates on the restaurants, so at present, nothing goes in the article until we do. Drmargi (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets start with disregarding the claim that the NY Post article is factually incorrect and go from there. CenterofGravity (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And raise a new issue -- the bias present in the use of "New York area" to capture three states (a stretch at best), the use of unattributed secondary sources for some content (sloppy journalism at best) and the failure to include alternative explanations for the closures, a move designed to create a 1-to-1 correspondence between the closures and Ramsay's actions completely unsubstantiated by any evidence. Moreover, Dave Leonard, of the Black Pearl, can say what he wants, but anyone who saw his episode knows he and Ramsay butted heads from the beginning, and he (Leonard) went out of his way to find fault with everything Ramsay did or attempted to do. There's no merit whatsoever to that quote, and including it without some considerable qualification fails WP:NEUTRAL. Drmargi (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all we have is two people's opinions. The point of my posting on RSN was to determine whether or not the source is reliable, and we have determined that it is. The argument that it's invalid because it's a tabloid is now invalid. How it can be used in the article is another issue entirely, however. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just updating - it's now up to four six users (one two of whom is an admin are admins) who have said that the NYPost is a reliable source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The New York Post serves readers in the New York Metropolitan area which encompasses those three states. There's a reason why former owner Chris Posners comment was included as well to counterbalance and maintain neutrality. CenterofGravity (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You really need to look into the whole Black Pearl situation. Start with their issues with the NYC Board of Health and Federal Occupational Health departments, their misrepresentation of Canadian lobster as from Maine and the constant in-fighting among the owners. Dave Leonard has made cause of blaming Ramsay for the closure without a scintilla of evidence to back up his claims. Perhaps that's the best way to deflect attention from his own failures, and the actual reason the restaurant failed? A quote from another owner, however it's framed, doesn't balance Leonard's baseless claims. Oh, and you're still dodging the larger issue that we have no consensus on any sort of updates. Let's get there first, and then, and only then, wordsmith what's said.Drmargi (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't these updates been trans-wiki/blogged as I suggested months ago? This is dragging out way too long. --Madchester (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for an administrator, other than Madchester to freeze this article as recommended(Maybe someone like Wizardman ). The reason being that MadCheser has taken a position of biased when it comes to reinstating the updates. I brought up an argument in a discussion long ago using the Amazing Race and he compromised his neutrality by heading to those articles and deleting the so-called miscellaneous information to back up his case. As we look back HelloAnnyong did a great job rewording the sentences(which were referenced off the New York Post) to give it some semblance of neutrality. Then comes along a particular individual challenging the article's facts on blaming Ramsay's for the restaurants failure, without looking at the articles's good points of being notable, reliable and of being journalistic content. Using the argument of the article being of tabloid material doesn't cut any ice any more either. What if the Washington Post or LA Times ran the same article? You can't use the same old argument here anymore. Furthermore the arguments about not having concensus on any sort of updates is void. Roman888 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you're not reading any of the discussion here, and instead are just unilaterally posting whatever's on your mind. The tabloid argument is invalid now, but that still doesn't change the fact that the text needs to be somehow worked into the article where it's appropriate. It doesn't belong in the reception section, since that section is supposed to cover how the show is received by critics and audiences. A sentence or two about the restaurants after they were on the show doesn't belong there. Rather than just posting your latest diatribe and causing more discord, perhaps you could find a way to contribute to the article? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm disappointed that Roman misconstured my comments to fit his argument.... please assume good faith please. --Madchester (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether he doesn't read or willfully misunderstands to suit his own agenda. I invited Roman to establish how the NYP article is notable, etc as he claims, which he ignored. There are significant issues of neutrality associated with that article given its slanted approach to the discussion of the restaurant closings, along with the issue of updates, that must be addressed before anything from it can be included. Now he's claiming the arguments about no consensus are void, which is utter nonsense -- there's no consensus about anything here. The bottom line is that this is about his prosecuting a grudge against a small group of editors, and little else, as clearly evidenced by his constant repetitive and tendentious arguments, the absence of any sort of assumption of good faith, and his repeated personal attacks. Drmargi (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong / Madcester, It's very simple when you look at the article in the NYPost - [1] - Of the 13 restaurants in the New York area that Ramsay has visited in the first two seasons of "Nightmares," only five are still in business. The other eight have gone belly up. The list stretches from Stamford, Ct. (Sabatiello's) to Cranbury, NJ (Hannah & Mason's) to Manhattan (Black Pearl). Just 2 sentences already makes the article notable - Of the 13 restaurants in the New York area that Ramsay has visited in the first two seasons of "Nightmares," only five are still in business. The other eight have gone belly up. Long Island was especially susceptible to post-"Nightmares" shutdowns: Peter's (Babylon), The Mixing Bowl (Bellmore), Trobiano's (Great Neck) and Seascape (Islip). Why do you need any further discussion about the sentences other than to fit your agenda? Did you read that eight have gone belly up? Now you want to argue about the simple things like the numbers of restaurants in the articles? Just because all the restaurants weren't name doesn't mean its not noteworthy? Where's the proof that NYPost is not a reliable source? Someone keeps saying that it is a tabloid newspaper. Where's your proof its a tabloid? It all sums up that someone's nitpicking every single reference source to suit someone's whim and fancy? You don't like it you remove it without concensus. We can play this game and remove the entire article. Madchester, you didn't assume good faith in the first place by deleting the misc information in the Amazing Race just to suit your argument about funcraft. Roman888 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To a certain editor that feels that I have attacked him, grow up! (Notice I never called you by name) And stop harrying other people's talk pages just to suit your own agenda. Roman888 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman, first of all, you don't get to target your arguments to certain editors with the expectation you are discussing with them alone. This is an open discussion, to which anyone may reply. Moreover, failing to use my user name doesn't mean it isn't crystal clear that you're continuing to target your complaints and digs at me. You're getting to be a broken record. frankly, with your insistence on bringing up the same old, tired and utterly irrelevant complaints over and over again. Machester's edits on the Amazing Race page have no bearing here, and any discussion of those edits should be confined to his talk page and the Amazing Race talk page. In a similar vein, your rather transparent attempts to somehow use a few now-dated comments I made on other's talk pages, perfectly appropriate comments that used the talk pages in the way they were intended, I might add, to somehow diminish your own culpability for being caught canvassing simply won't wash; trying to characterize my comments as "harrying" is just silly.

Now, to deal with the present, you have a rather annoying habit of reversing a question back to an editor when you don't want to deal with it. Clearly, you can't establish that the material you cite above is notable and reliable, so rather than responding to my perfectly commonplace and reasonable request, you've attempted to reverse the argument, ignore the issue of no consensus regarding updates, and dodge the question. Sorry, no dice. I'm not the one trying to insert this material, and the burden is on you to gain consensus regarding its reliability and notability if and when we have consensus to add updates. The NYP is reliable in some peoples' opinion, and we'll let that rest for now. But the material you are attempting to insert has still been challenged -- it's clearly biased in that it does not examine any reason for the restaurant closures but rather uses a sensational title to lay blame, and thereby, when placed in the Ramsay article, leads the reader to conclude that Ramsay is to blame for the closures. That violates WP:NEUTRAL, particularly when a little simple research would tell you that Seascape was sold by the owners Ramsay worked for when they received an offer they couldn't refuse (which is noted in the episode), The Mixing Bowl closed when the owner took a position consulting for a large restaurant group, Trobiano's was closed by local authorities after the owners repeatedly failed to pay their taxes, The Black Pearl was closed when business dropped after repeated issues with two different health authorities, and Peter's did well for a time, then closed when Peter returned to his old ways and again began draining the restaurant's earnings for personal purposes. So, you tell me: where's the neutrality, much less notability, or even relevance, in adding the statement above without some explanation of why the restaurants closed? The problem is, once you add that explanation, it becomes clear their closures have nothing to do with Gordon Ramsay and his efforts, and the content has no place in the article. Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for argument's sake and completeness, is there some reason why saying the following is unacceptable:

In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open.

I don't think that that violates WP:NPOV, as it does not draw any connections between Ramsay and the closures. In full disclosure, that was the text from my edit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was WP:NEUTRAL, not WP:NPOV. But you raise another element of a problem I noted earlier - if it doesn't have to do with Ramsay, what's it doing in an article about his show? The statement is little more than trivia about a bunch of non-notable restaurants as framed above. (Oh, and Sabatiello's has been sold and reopened, so it's now also inaccurate.) Drmargi (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that argument. This article is about the show itself, so covering the restaurants on the show is definitely within the scope of this article. Further, you didn't answer my question why the quote above is invalid. And even if that other restaurant has reopened, altering how we cover it would be a violation of WP:SYN. (Psst, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NPOV point to the same article.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In the first place when I retype the same arguments again and again is to emphasise the futility of this discussion. We have already seen HelloAnnyong retype the original sentence that was acceptable to CenterofGravity and myself. Then notice the same old editor comes again and deletes its without proper just cause. I don't see any problems with the article being not WP:NEUTRAL or violating WP:NPOV. It's not trivia or funcraft (which Madchester, I repeat did a disservice to his argument by going to the Amazing Race and delete information regarding the contestants to bolster his case) but the information that the restaurants closed. In August 2009, the New York Post reported that of thirteen restaurants visited in the first two seasons, only five are still open. - the rewording of this sentence is neutral enough if you think you want hide Ramsay's failures in turning around the restaurants. In fact we are not hear to paint Ramsay in a good light or bad light but to present all the facts. Its already been established that the articles are reliable(there were closures), notable (8 restaurants were closed) and of journalistic content(restaurants were investigate and found closed) - and is not a tabloid source according to someone's comments. You can start blurting out all the information whether the restaurant has been sold to another owner,closed by the local authorities, etc. - but that doesn't detract from the point that the restaurants are closed. Roman888 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions I have challenged the removal of the notes column and the updates of the restaurants in them. They shouldn't have been removed in the first place without a proper discussion by getting all individuals involved especially the ones that have so dilligently put the updates there in the first place. If you have the right to challenge every single update, I also see fit to challenge the removal of the updates in the first place. You also do not have the concensus when it comes to the removal of the updates, if you think I do not have the concensus to reinstate the updates. So we are back in square one, and I don't think there is any way we can move forward and update this article. When we are coming to Season 3 of the show, we are going to see what's happening to the restaurants - the failures, extra news stories of closures, etc. and this will open another can of worms for both parties. We will definitely see more edit warrings from both sides and it won't be a pretty sight for the neutrals. I am damn sure the next update by a newcomer will be reedited, and so will the next by the same old individuals. I am willing to wait another 10 years for this to ride out - maybe Wikipedia will be obsolete by then. Roman888 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to wait another 10 years for this to ride out - WP:POINT? It's not about winning the argument, but meeting proper consensus. --Madchester (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think a claim like that would also be tendentious, no? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim is not only tendentious, but it makes clear Roman has no intention of working toward consensus, but rather plans to win at all costs. It's seemed that was his intention for some time, but it is useful to have confirmation of that fact. It's not terribly surprising, given his announced agenda for his editorship here, as posted on his user page, but disappointing all the same. Moreover, the post above makes clear Roman either has no understanding of how notability and reliability are determined, and that he feels no obligation to respect the WP:NEUTRAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies in order to suit his ends. And his ends are equally clearly biased, as evidenced by his statement: ...hide Ramsay's failures in turning around the restaurants. He is quite obviously operating under the assumption the restaurants' closures. some of which occurred as much as two years after Ramsay's visits, and the reasons for some of which are documented above, are both failures and Ramsay's fault. Sadly, he seems to feel that some of us who are opposed to updates must be apologists for or defenders of Ramsay. I can't speak for any of the others, but my concerns are with accuracy, fairness and thoroughness, not with defending Ramsay. That said, however, I'm opposed to any unqualified statement that, in its vagueness or broadness, allows the reader to infer that the closures are Ramsay's fault, or any one-sided collection of edits targeting closures alone, both of which are highly biased and violate WP:NEUTRAL. I'm also concerned with avoiding the return of the endless sourcing problems we saw earlier, and with avoiding turning this into a collection of pointless information about the restaurants Ramsay visited that potentially continues to be updated long after his visits and thereby, long after their relationship to Ramsay's efforts. That's it. Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Break 3

I just decided that I'm going to take my leave from this article. After participating in the discussion for months, it's clear that nothing is ever going to get better. If any progress is made, you are all more than welcome to leave a message on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year wherever you are, HelloAnnyong. Sadly by the time you might decide to return to this discussion, we won't see any progress made to getting any form of consensus and Ramsay's son will be 50 years old and taking over his father's job. This is holiday humour for you while some individuals will take offense to this statement and make extra accusations against me.(Madchester, it would be better to look at yourself rather than to quote me every time I say something. Try to address the disservice you did with the Amazing Race articles.) I already addressed the current situation as futile and some individuals have the cheek to say I am being tendentious while there is a bigger crime of disruptive editing and deletions on their part. Individuals like HelloAnnyong have tried to come to the middle ground and reword the sentences so they are acceptable to all individuals, but its simply a wasted effort. For the past year, so many editors have come and gone. Updates on the restaurants have appeared and been deleted. Restaurants name changes have appeared and been deleted. News of the restaurants changing hands have appeared and been deleted. News of restaurant owners suing Ramsay have been deleted. I have never seen a article before this where tag teams dominate and fanaticism holds sway (someone is over-guarding this topic as his personal fiefdom). This has never been about consensus for a certain editor but an attempt to marginalize others and take over the article. It's also never been an attempt at fairness, accuracy and thoroughness but setting up roadblocks and newer roadblocks down the line. Here's the thing, you put in something new, please be prepared to run through a gauntlet of 'rules'. Someone's not happy he might quote neutrality rule. If that has been dis-proven he might quote neutral point of view rule. If that is dis-proven he will quote notability, reliability and the list goes on an on. Then that person will say you don't have consensus because said edit did not conform to Rule 1, etc. So any newcomers who come to this article, I am very afraid for you. Just make sure you bring extra sweat socks and underwear for the long haul.(my second attempt at holiday humour). Roman888 (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said previously, miscellaneous information on some of the earlier Race articles should be removed, as they fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because they're still there - doesn't mean they're apporiate for Wiki. If you review the later Race articles, I was the one who spearheaded the shift to the Production, Cast, etc. sections to aggregate news articles that were actually relevant to the television series. We reached consensus that said miscellaneous details weren't suitable for Wiki. If certain racers are notable outside of the Race, their personal post-Race exploits are documented in their respective bio articles - and not within each series' television article. (So there was nothing wrong in you pointing out some fancruft in said article, and my removing it to meet the existing consensus on those Race articles.) The same logic should apply to KN, where the actual histories of the restaurants (before/after KN) should be documented in their respective articles (if they warrant individual notability) as KN only captures a few weeks/months in the lifespan of each establishment.

My 2 cents has always been to trans-wiki said updates... it's just beyond the scope of a television article. --Madchester (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope everyone had a great Xmas and Happy New Year, especially you Madchester. Also hope everyone is back and refreshed to go another thousand rounds regarding the updates. Regarding the points which you made regarding your discussion, I fail to see any concensus or agreement made by the other individuals in your discussion. One individual didn't like the new format. The other had misgivings about the thing and was half-hearted in supporting the change. In the future there will be people who will challenge the changes you made regarding the trivia additions in the Amazing Race. In the other discussion area I fail to see anyone chipping in to that discussion, where you quoted some rules about removing the trivia section and decided that you can implement the changes without consensus. Whereas in the other discussion, I didn't see making any comments whatsoever. With pointing these areas you still have not negated or discounted why the updates for the restaurants should be removed from Kitchen Nightmares. There is no point in your previous discussion where you have proven that the information falls under the categories of not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. So the battle continues on. Roman888 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman, I'm going to again request you confine your discussion regarding The Amazing Race article to its talk pages, and refrain from either discussing edits to it here or using it to discredit Madchester's arguments regarding the KN and RKN articles. They are in no way related, nor are the points you are attempting to make regarding AR relevant here. They are simply one of the more annoying elements of the endlessly circular discussion you persist in perpetuating in an effort to win the day by sheet dint of words. If all you see on the horizon is a thousand rounds, accomplishing nothing, perhaps it's time to give up. You do know the definition of insanity, don't you? Drmargi (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments regarding the Amazing Race articles were due to the fact that Madchester brought some comparisons regarding the trivia and notes sections of the Amazing Race seasons and Kitchen Nightmares. For you to tell me that I should confine the discussion to Amazing Race is firstly your failure to provide a decent argument that the updates and notes sections should be removed. The points raised in the comparison has much to do with the removal of the updates in the Kitchen Nightmares. Whereas you keep on repeating that consensus was made on the updates, I don't see any consensus. There has never been any consensus agreed upon for the removal of the updates and notes sections. You just have to look back at the numerous discussion topics over the last year or so, and you can see how many people are against the removals. You, Madchester, etc are not the only party that can call for consensus. You can say that 2 years ago everyone agreed for the removal, but sorry that's not the case. If you can't read into sarcasm saying that this is one of the hundred or thousand or million rounds that we will be engaging on this topic, either you don't have a sense of humour or your just 'insane'. Pardon the pun. Roman888 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was reached - an editor not liking a change =/= not reaching consensus. That was 2+ years ago, and there's been no objections, as other editors recognized that the older format went against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Also check the edit histories of the articles with multiple editors reverting or re-intergrating said details from Race articles, with reference to the mentioned wiki policies.

For these KN/RKN articles, we could have simply went for a TV directory style listing of the episodes. i.e., only present the original names of the restaurants featured (as done at TV.com, TV Guide, Channel4.com, etc...) We already go a step further by mentioning the on-screen fates of each establishment for better or for worse. The restaurant histories after the television show aren't really applicable to a television article. (Likewise, we don't go provide news stories about the restaurants pre-KN/RKN. These eateries already had problems before applying for the show...) I think you got it the wrong way - it's your responsability to demonstrate why said restaurant details are relevant to a television program and don't violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, wouldn't it be against WP:NPOV to only present post-show info, but not background pre-show info about the restaurants (if you can find any as they only became newsworthy after RKN/KN)? That's the whole "can of worms" issue that other editors have commented on with these updates.... Showing which restaurant closed during actual filming is more than sufficient for the purpose of a television article. --Madchester (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now for you all to continuously quote WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NPOV and the number of other rules which I and number of editors have argued against is simply going back to the same old arguments. We have already given arguments for points raised such as WP:VERIFY, WP:notability, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Why should we continue to limit ourselves on what is newsworthy and what is not - closure of the restaurants during filming? closure of the restaurants after filming? whether the source is from a tabloid? whether the source is from the mainstream media? There is no set precedent whatsoever regarding the putting information on the closures of the restaurants. Wikipedia is a source of information and has overtaken Encyclopedias like Britannica in terms of volumes of articles and topics. Are you saying that you don't want to improve on the articles because of these roadblocks you set up? Which reminds me, we are forgetting the most important rule of all :Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Roman888 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman, let me ask you a very simple question: what is the point of Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, and what does Ramsay promise the restaurant owners? Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman, if you question the consenus on the format for TAR articles - do so there, not on the KN articles The example there is to demonstrate that relevant trivia details can be properly re-intregrated into an article without violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. You're under the impression that Wiki should cover each and every minute detail about a topic, but WP:NOT explictly states In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. and adds that content merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Likewise, WP:DIRECTORY adds that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. We can only include content that is directly related to the article at hand.

And to follow up Dmargi's question, if you look at one of the Slate review of RKN, it states that the program "doesn't promise a ticket to ride" and merely offers restaurants the chance "that they might, just might, break even for the next few months". Being featured on the show =/= Charlie Bucket finding a Golden Ticket; it merely offers a chance for a restaurant to turn things around. And even then, it's only a small blip in the history of a restaurant. Lasan recently won The F Word's title of "Best British local restaurant" - but in honesty its just one award among the dozens of awards the restaurant has racked up since its opening. The restaurant was already a success sans Ramsay. Not sure why we need to add post-show restaurant info to as it gives undue weight to the show actually changing the fates of said establishments for better or for worse... besides the fact it goes against WP:NOT's content policies. --Madchester (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am questioning the consensus in TAR articles, which was not done properly and where you as one individual posted a discussion topic without getting any various feedback from the other editors. You then assumed that consensus was made. Which brings us to the Kitchen Nigthmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares articles, where first of all if you look at the previous discussion topics there were objections to the removal of the updates and notes sections of the tables. Those were blatantly removed even though consensus wasn't reach. Mind you there were objections challenging the removals but these were ignored. I had already suggested that the updates and notes sections be reinstated, and for this matter to go into arbitration or mediation or whatever you call it. At least get a neutral party who doesn't have any biased make a decision on this matter. What is this so difficult to understand? and the which was not done in the spirit of consensus.Roman888 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I point to your comment where you stated that you are it you are partly undecided whether you want to add post-show information about the restaurants. It does go against the WP:NOT policy, in that the information regarding the closure of the restaurants is notable and verifiable. This is not an opinion piece about Ramsay's performance, but information or fact stating that a number of restaurants were closed (quoting the New York Post and the other articles) Again you quote another vague rule WP:DIRECTORY where you said that the content should be related to the article at hand. Here this is very ambiguous as it points both ways. We can look at the show's purpose in many ways. It can be a restaurant makeover show. It can be a show to prevent the closures of the restaurants or a rescue operation. It can be a show about drama involving Ramsay and the owners of the restaurants. Isn't it time to come out of your indecision and reinstate the updates and notes columns. Roman888 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reaching the point with Roman's diversionary malarkey regarding TAR that I'm tempted to delete his irrelevant comments, particularly given his remakrs here continue to make clear he lacks any understanding of what consensus is, much less how it is reached! For the umpteenth time, an editor does not require consensus in advance to make an edit; quite the opposite in fact. However, once a consensus discussion is requested, no further edits can be made. There was no blatant removal of anything, just a failure to reach consensus in support of the restoration of the updates once a consensus discussion was requested. You can continue to attempt contort that fact all you wish, but it won't change it one iota.

Meanwhile, Roman, you have utterly avoided answering my question, just hidden behind another spate of irrelevant and utterly repetitive verbiage, all of which we've heard before (endlessly!) Drmargi (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, since DrM also lacks the clear understanding of what constitutes a consensus in Wikipedia, we can do what we want. We can follow his example and make edits such as reinstating the updates and notes column of the tables without discussing with others. We can continue to revert all of DrM's changes or blatant removals (which he feigns ignorance of) But since everyone is civil enough to take this to discussion or negotiations, we can continue discussing this until he changes his modus operandi.Roman888 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since DrM's wants to equate my rebuttals and arguments as diversionary tactics (to hide his poor argument that he got consensus in the first place) let me point out in the last few discussion topics he has failed to gain consensus. Notice that in each and every topic, there is dissenting voice:

Discussion 1

Discussion 2

Discussion 3

So what else is new? DrM doesn't want to his changes or removals reverted. He doesn't want to take this into mediation. He continues to harp that he has consensus which is non-existent. He also continues to belittle others arguments. So its pertinent that we go another million rounds(pardon the pun, but he's going to throw another few insults because I made this statement.Roman888 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you still haven't answered my question. Drmargi (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered DrM questions in regards to what Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and Kitchen Nightmares are about. Are you trying to be combative or arrogant that you need double or triple clarification to your questions? Roman888 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Break 4

Its quite clear that nothing is going to get better in the Kitchen Nightmares article. I don't see any progress made in regards to reinstating the updates / notes column. There is likely not going to be any progress made this year 2010 because of certain individuals who see this topic as their own personal fiefdom. (if you think this is a personal attack, get over yourselves. Not everything is about you!) If any future readers who happened to come across this discussion, will be put off by the sheer obstacles and roadblocks placed by certain individuals in improving this article. We has see constant reedits and removal of information, bordering on edit warring. Individuals have been reported in edit warring noticeboards previously but that has not stop the problems from reoccurring. So get ready for another round of discussions for Kitchen Nightmares. Roman888 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Location links consensus

Drmangi has reverted the following edit twice: changing the unlinked Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Fishtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

All of the episodes have links to their respective towns. The only exception is the large metro areas where a link to the town would be irrelevant. In those cases if a specific neighborhood can be identified, then that becomes a useful link. It's a minor issue, but it's generated some discussion so I would like some outside consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, up to now, the table has always been limited to cities, not cities and neighborhoods, although a number of other episodes featured neighborhood identities. It's not a big deal, just a simple issue of consistency and what's really meaningful to a typical reader. The show is about Ramsay, not fine detail regarding the restaurants or where they are located, so the KISS principle seemed the most reasonable approach to identifying the restaurant. Otherwise, we've got listings such as Lela's in Old Town Pomona, not just Pomona, ad nauseum. Where do we draw the line? It means something if you're in Philly or Pomona, but not a whole lot if you're elsewhere. --Drmargi (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have been assuming too much. I don't want to link every neighborhood, but in large cities, like Philly and NY, I assumed that they weren't linked because the link would be meaningless. On the other hand a link to Tuckahoe, New York is pretty specific. I merely want the same for the other cities. I suppose linking New York, New York works too. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We Can't Let This Rest Before It's Decided

In which season should Casa Roma be added should the episode finally air? All indications point at S2 (it was a Season 2 episode, the BBC America program list has this episode among the other Season 2 entries, and a brief montage in the "Returns" episode at the beginning of that season shows Casa Roma's logo). I ask because of the recent edit adding it to S3 as the episode can't truly be called S3 for the reasons above. Like when the "Great British Nightmare" was split to two episodes, its original identity (one long special) still applies. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's ever broadcast (big IF) I'd think that it belongs with the season where it was broadcast. Unless we can reliably source it belongs with another season, and want to take on the inevitable changes that will come from people who want it listed in broadcast sequence, it seems simplest to just list it in broadcast order. Bottom line: that defines a season, doesn't it? That means that if Fox broadcasts it, it goes with S3 and if BBC America broadcasts it, it goes with S2 (assuming that's where it will be) with a note explaining it wasn't broadcast on Fox. It's simple, and most accurately represents how the episode was run. --Drmargi (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It was broadcast, but perhaps not in the US. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's already a note about the UK broadcast last year, and it's apparently now been broadcast in Canada, but the table covers US broadcasts since it's a US show. Right now it's on the Fox schedule for March 12. BBC America has halted broadcasts of Season Two halfway through, presumably so it doesn't compete with the new shows on Fox, so the March 10 broadcast date is now inaccurate according to both BBCAmerica's own schedule, and TitanTV, which provides schedules to some media. I'm going to add it, and the last of the Thursday episodes to the table now. --Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PJ's Steakhouse - Missing Episode?

An episode aired here in the UK on Wednesday, 10th March 2010 which doesn't appear to be on the episode list. The episode in question was for PJ's Steakhouse in Queens, New York (renamed to PJ's Grill during production), which shortly after filming closed after the owners Joe and Madalyn decided to shut up shop and continue back to working in the construction business.

All previous episodes of Season 3 were aired in the correct order as on the list on the Wiki, but only the episodes from Hot Potato Cafe thru Mojito. This PJ's Steakhouse episode was aired in place of Lido di Manhattan Beach. Should this be noted somewhere in the Wiki? 82.25.69.42 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the UK is getting the episodes in a different order than the US. When the episode is broadcast in the US, it will be added to the list. This is a US show, and listing the episodes by US airdate is the most logical way to do so. Otherwise, we have to be explaining which country an episode appeared in first, which is just not that important. It should be shown here eventually, given this is the show's presumptive last season. If not, we can handle it the way we did Casa Roma. Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed v. Open status of restaurants

I just want to add my opinion on the 'closed' v. 'open' status of restaurants. I don't think that labeling them as 'closed' means that it's entirely (or at all) Ramsay's fault. If that's the issue, why not make a note that the restaurants are NOT closed as a result of Ramsay's intervention. I for one would like that information present if I were watching the episodes later. I watched the first series 'in real time;' but didn't watch series 2 or 3 as they were shown. Seeing that this information was actually listed but then deleted is annoying. PVarjak (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you were to go back into the archives and read the discussions (and we went around and around about this issue) you would find there are too many minuses weighed against the few plusses the updates brought to the article. The biggest reason for inclusion seems to be that folks are interested, but that had to be balanced against a series of policy, and practical issues, not the least of which being availability of accurate, reliable sources, and the implication that Ramsay is somehow responsible for what happens to the restaurants. Moreover, the attention seemed to be thrown onto which restaurants, and how many, were closed regardless of what other updated information was added. Perhaps the biggest issue was a practical one: how long do we continue to update? On balance, the updates added so little weighed against the problems they presented that consensus was to remove them from both the US and UK articles. (Fun ID - Breakfast at Tiffany's?) Drmargi (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this series is Ramsay's "attempt to revive the business". Wikipedia should allow a analyses how successful the attempt was, especially if it is so unsuccessful as in this case. It's maybe not Ramsay's fault if these restaurants are dying, but it seems that BBC and Ramsay are taking advantage of dying businesses. A discussion which Wiki should alow. Only one business out of sesion 2 is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.118.163 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The minute you get into "analysis" you're talking about opinion and original research, nether of which are encyclopedic or permissible under Wikipedia guidelines. The function of this article is to document what occurred on the show, not track the restaurants into perpetuity. The focus of the show is Ramsay and what he does, not the restaurant. Moreover, whether the show takes advantage of the restaurant or not, which is a matter of opinion, the restaurant allowed the show in, and got a lot in exchange. They're hardly victims. As pointed out in a lengthy discussion in the archive, adding outcomes suggests a causal link between Ramsay and the eventual outcome that cannot be made. In one case just among those you attempted to add, it was taxes that resulted in their closure, and another was the NY Health Department that closed them. That has nothing to do with Ramsay. Then there is the simple problem of keeping status accurate, and the so-what factor this long after the fact. Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussion has taken place...over and over and over and over and over again. Take a look through the archives. A strong consensus has long-been established to not have closings posted here. Unless Ramsay or the show directly caused the closings, it should not be included here for a myriad of reasons, all of which can be found in the archives. --13² 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is, time was I thought the updates were worth having, when the show was new. But the further away from the filming times we get, the worse the economy gets and the more extenuating circumstances that affect the restaurants, the more pointless and problematic the updates become. They're far, far too much trouble for very little (and now dated) return. Drmargi (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the updates is also pointless. Reading through the archives there has been no majority consensus to remove the updates. We should let the updates stay as is as removing them is also problematic in the long run. If the restaurants are reported closed by a news website, then all the more its not about opinion or original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.140.8.85 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't include something just because some people might find the information interesting. There are a myriad of valid reasons to remove them and they have been stated over and over with no one coming any closer to changing consensus (and yes, consensus is to keep them left out because the reasons to keep them out are far stronger than the reasons to keep them in). Unless you can show us how those issues are not problematic, they need to be left out. --13² 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is not a news website in any case and we shouldn't include every information that is not interesting. But every now and then a few posters come along and add the updated status of the restaurants because they are notable. The restaurants are in themselves covered under the organization and companies section in the notability guidelines. Also I find it hard to to see how you can come to conclusion that the a consensus is to leave the updates, because looking at the stated arguments in the archives for the last year there are also many myriad good arguments calling to keep the updates compared to leave them out as well. There appears to be a [Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] every time one of the editors just happens to arbitrarily remove the updates. And furthermore its not the case of new posters having to prove in the discussion page here that having the information is not problematic, when looking back at past discussions regarding this issue there has been no agreement on what should be the best solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.196.15 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the consensus is to leave them out because that side is stronger. Every argument to keep them in centers around the fact that the information is interesting or that readers might want to know. You've ignored several key arguments to keep them removed. The biggest of which is that it indicates that Ramsay had some doing in the downfall of restaurants, which is patently untrue. Most of these establishments are way in debt and would have gone under whether or not Ramsay tried to help. By indicating whether or not they are closed on this article, it implies that Ramsay was a direct contributing factor, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Secondly, you mentioned above that the restaurants are notable. Perhaps, but that information does not belong on the article about the show. If the restaurants are truly notable, they deserve their own article, which is where information about closings and such are perfectly acceptable. This article is about what happens on the show and things directly related to the show. The only way the closings would fit into that if there is irrefutable proof that Ramsay's appearance directly caused the restaurant to suffer and fail. As that cannot be proven, it cannot be included because including it, in any form, assigns the restaurant's failing directly to Ramsay and his crew.

Thirdly, 99% of the sources that have been used to back this information up are completely and totally unreliable. There is almost no news coverage after the episodes air and most of the information on closings is garnered from forums, blogs, and review sites, none of which can be used as sources. Even if we were to keep the updates in, most of them couldn't even be included anyway, which means an almost entirely empty column, which makes the article less uniform and looks more sloppy. However, that issue can be fixed completely by simply creating articles for the individual restaurants (and making sure they pass WP:ORG) and stating the information there.

Finally, you are also very clearly not understanding how consensus works on Wikipedia (actually, I think you do, you're just logged out of your account, and you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now and assume you're just picking up key words from other discussions). Consensus is not established by a vote (the only exception I'm aware of is adminship nomination), or how many people try to add it back, or how many people come to this talk page to moan and groan about it. Consensus is established based on which side is stronger and best upholds Wikipedia's purposes and principals best. Adding information because the readers might like it, while violating key policies like WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, directly contradicts that. There has already been an RFC on this issue and the consensus was to keep the updates out, even if there were a handful of vocal people against it. If you disagree with that outcome, you are more than welcome to take it further up the chain and get mediation with admins involved.

As a side note, it is neither a conflict of interest (which you also clearly don't understand) or a "bold" move (which you might also want to review) to revert an edit that goes against established consensus. --13² 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Season 3 is Season 2 on Fox.com, Why??

Fox is listing the current season as no 2 Any idea why they are doing this? This is clearly the third season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.247.222 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Perhaps someone running the website never bothered to update it. Those kinds of mistakes get made. Drmargi (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant updates, next round

The latest argument supporting adding updates regarding restaurant closures now centers on the two restaurants, Lela's and PJ's. In both cases, these restaurants closed between production and broadcast, allowing the show to add an epilogue worded largely to absolve Ramsay of any responsibility for the closure. The editor insists PJ's closed during production, but it's quite clear they closed some time during post (which can a period of some months after Ramsay finished.) Regardless, we have discussed adding closure updates endlessly, and the same principle applies: the show is about Ramsay's efforts during a period of roughly three days, not about the restaurants, and whether they close, go back to a previous name, retain the menu changes, or whatever. Therefore any updates of this sort are simple indiscriminate information that belongs in an article about the restaurant if the restaurant is notable to merit one. Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply put you originally have put down the reasons for not including the closures for PJ's and Lela's due to the fact the restaurants closed during the times between production and broadcast. As this article is about the show itself, the information about the closures should be added nonetheless. It doesn't matter if they closed some months after Ramsay had tinkered with the restaurants as that information was shown at the end of the said episode. You keep on harping about the notability issue of the restaurant, and not once was the notability argument used regarding the closures for PJ's and Lela's. Sorry to burst your bubble but the same principles does not apply here. It would have applied if the restaurant closed months after broadcast or if the restaurant . You would have bolstered your argument in that area. I will revert your removal of the closures as firstly the consensus you are referring to are not specific to restaurants closures that are shown during the broadcast episode of the show. Like you said burden falls on you to state otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.45.162 (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And it's coming right back out again. You're splitting semantic hairs in order to continue an edit war, when the practice is to discuss and reach consensus before you revert once a discussion has started. We have consensus, long standing: no updates. There's no time limit, and no "but only if there's no epilogue" to it. There burden to establish new consensus is on you, not me. Drmargi (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost your talking about another issue altogether. Sure you have consensus about updates regarding what happens to restaurants months or years after the original broadcasts have taken place. But you don't have any current consensus on what happens during the show itself. If the episode says the restaurant closed because the owners decided to return to construction as in the case of PJ's or if Lela's owner decided to close the restaurant because of bad debts, then it happened during the show and the information must be included. I can include even trivial matters in this subject too, like the owners of said restaurant have moved to another city if it is stated in the epilogue. But I choose not to, only concentrating on the closure of the restaurants. In other words as this is a new issue, the burden to establish new consensus is on you, not the other way around. Hope this explains it much better and opens your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.45.162 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

DId you actually read ALL the discussion, including the archive? We have consensus on both the US and UK shows to exclude updates, PERIOD. As in ALL updates. Not just the ones we mentioned during the discussion. You're playing semantic games in order to keep in an edit for which you DO NOT HAVE CONSENSUS. There's no onus on me; I have consensus on my side. You want to make the change, therefore the burden to gain consensus is solely yours. All the hairsplitting in the world won't change that. The process is simple: you edit, I revert, we talk. You refuse to respect that, are editing under multiple IP's and are edit warring.

There's another problem as well. You are making an assumption that the epilogue means that Lela's and PJ's decided to close while Ramsay and the show were still there. How do you know? What's your source? The epilogue? Both of the epilogues make it clear that the restaurants decide to close some time after Ramsay had departed. Lela's continued to operate for five months before she was finally overwhelmed by debt and closed -- and that's right in the epilogue. That has nothing to do with Ramsay or what he did over those three days. PJ's is similar. If you're going to hang your argument on the contention that the restaurants closed during filming, you better have a reliable external source, because your epilogues don't support your argument.

The article is about the show and the three days Ramsay spends at the restaurant, not what happens the months between those days and the date when the episode is delivered to the network, or broadcast. Your argument simply doesn't hold up. You can continue to edit war by claiming I don't have consensus, but the archived discussions and the one on this page make it abundantly clear I do. Please read up on edit warring, the consensus process and reliable sources, work toward consensus rather than attempting to win a tug-of-war you can't win, particularly editing under at least three IP's and respect the process in place. And please sign your posts. Drmargi (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change by the IP because it was unsourced. That done, that this article should be solely "about the show and the three days Ramsay spends at the restaurant" is way too excessive. You might as well remove all the info about the Blair Witch Project except stating it was a documentary about three teenagers in the woods. Garion96 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not real sure I see how the two are analogous, but never mind that. You might want to read the tortured and lengthy discussions in the archive. We came to consensus across the two articles (US and UK shows) limiting content in the articles to what happened during the show because of the considerable negatives weighed against a small number of positives. The show is about what Ramsay does to give the restaurants a second chance, not whether they eventually make it. That information belongs in articles about the restaurants themselves, if they are notable enough to merit them. We drew precedent from a variety of other reality shows whose articles are limited to what happened during the term of the show's production, not what happens to the competitors after the fact (again, that stuff belonging in individual articles on the competitors.) The problem with adding the updates, aside from a variety of sourcing issues, is the issue of how long to update, and the lack of attention to other kinds up updates, as well as the suggestion that the closures are somehow directly the result of Ramsay's intervention. During the discussion, I researched the closures of a group of the restaurants, and found they'd closed for reasons ranging from owner debts, to failure to pay taxes, to the orders of the NYC health department, and a variety of similar causes. What's that got to do with Kitchen Nightmares? Nothing. That's why the only possible line to draw was at the point Ramsay leaves the restaurant. Drmargi (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that you have consensus over ALL UPDATES regarding Kitchen Nightmares and the UK edition is another argument altogether. Reading through the archives and past discussions, there is no mention that status of restaurant closures that are mentioned during broadcast of the episodes should not be included. Please enlightened me on which area of the discussions in the archives did you come to the conclusion that you had consensus in regards to restaurant updates that are shown during the broadcasting of the episode. At least show me proof that what you are saying is correct instead of using bluster to put down anyone who wants to include legitimate updates to this article. Don't say its FINAL because its not.

Looking at the archives discussion we can first derive that the arguments made were about the notability of the restaurants and the merits of the information about them. These included information or their status of what happened to the restaurants before or after the broadcasts had taken placed. That is fine and dandy, because we don't need to include information that the restaurant closed 6 months or 2 years down the track after the episode has been broadcast. If the restaurants merit their own article then we can include them in their own articles. However the burden of proof is on you to show me where what happens to information in the epilogues during the episodes which is a different issue altogether and why they shouldn't be included.

The second main issue in the archives and here that you keep hammering at is the issue of Ramsay's responsibility in his involvement in the closures of restaurants. That argument is mute as I for one had already said that Ramsay's involvement in helping the restaurants is not an issue here. The restaurants already had big problems such as debts, poor staffing decisions, poor location, etc before Ramsay decided to intervene. Stating and giving reasons why the restaurants like PJ's and Lela's closed down during the broadcasting of the episodes didn't put Ramsay in any bad light or contravene NPOV rules. Anyway the other point is that we also get to see Revisited Episodes which shows Ramsay visiting these restaurants 6 months down the line.

Doesn't that say that Ramsay and the producers of the show are worried about what their tinkering of the restaurants have done. That's another matter altogether and should be discussed at another time.

There are other issues in the past discussion and archives (Yes! I have read the past archives and it took me a very, very long time)that I feel are unresolved or in conflict. I truly feel you have to open another discussion and list down what has been previously discussed. Past discussions should not be swept under the carpet until there is a full agreement by the editors. Anyway we are discussing another matter right now and that is restaurant updates that happened during the episodes themselves.

Furthermore it is not in the interest of the moderators to lock this article and prevent any editing. There is no issue whatsoever for this to happen in the first place. Instead of making accusations about sockpuppetry, perhaps I should let them know I use wireless internet on my laptop which might explain the different IPs. Everytime I log on its a different IP. I personally do not have any inkling to log into Wikipedia and create myself a nickname and lose my private information, including my email address in the process. So after the lock is removed, I'll just revert the edits like before because originally my edits were undone or reverted first of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.48.2 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Joseph Cerniglia

Several editors have added a section to this article regarding the suicide of Joseph Cerniglia in 2010. His restaurant, Campania, was featured on the show in 2007, over three years before Cerniglia's death. This article is about the show, not the restaurants or their chefs, and to include a discussion of the suicide here suggests the show is somehow connected to it. Given the period of time and the subsequent success of the restaurant following Ramsay's intervention (the restaurant remained open until Cerniglia's death), there is no reason to include this in the article, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See [2] for a report on the suicide, and Cerniglia's success post-Ramsay. Drmargi (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)