Talk:Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Season Reorganization (Renumbering)

It looks like Fox (along with the Canadian rebroadcaster Global) has different seasons than are listed here. Mainly, seasons one and two are merged, season three is season two, season four is season three and the new season five is season four. See http://www.globaltv.com/kitchennightmares/index.html (Blackberry's is listed as Season 4 Episode 1), and http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/full-episodes/49676/.

Also, The TVDB has updated their listings to match this. See http://thetvdb.com/?tab=seasonall&id=80552&lid=7 and the related discussion at http://forums.thetvdb.com/viewtopic.php?t=7093.

Hulu has the same numbering as Fox: http://www.hulu.com/kitchen-nightmares.

So does TV Guide: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/kitchen-nightmares/episodes/288069. And TV Rage: (link was blocked).

It appears this could become a bit confusing. Should this be listed as Fox and other sources are reporting them?

The notable exceptions to this are IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983514/episodes), tv.com (http://www.tv.com/shows/kitchen-nightmares/season/?season=all), sharetv.org (http://sharetv.org/shows/kitchen_nightmares/episodes).

Hetfield guitar (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing, particularly because the change took place long after the series began. I'm not concerned with what the Canadian broadcaster or entities like TVDB or TV Guide have; they get their information from Fox. If anything, I'd tend to lean toward TV.com as most accurate because they enter episodes as broadcast and have a built-in fact-check/review system to prevent errors. Moreover, BBC America, which rebroadcasts the episodes after Fox, uses the same numbering as here.

We talked about it at the time the change first appeared. At the time, we noted some issues with the listing of current episodes and the organization of the website (I forget the specifics). Given the inconsistency with the traditional use of "season" as that shown between a given September and the following August, the change (which I think we conjectured might have been the result of shooting a larger block of episodes than was shown) taking place long after the show started (I think either late in S3 or early S4) and the contradictory use of S5 for the current season in other Fox media materials that have been used in the article (see the lead paragraphs), that we'd do better to leave it as is. Drmargi (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be changed to reflect the current season numbering as listed by Fox, with a note explaining that Fox changed the numbering during the run of the series. This will create the least confusion as well as give an explanation of the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.53.213 (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi There - I'd like to bring this topic up for discussion again. While I agree that this is a confusing issue, the part that has driven me to want to change this is based on the new Season 5 (per Fox lol) is starting this Fall and I think it's important we edit this before it starts. I'm volunteering to edit it and I think we should keep a section on the old numbering (Season and Episode) with an explanation of what happened. What do you guys think? Kandi111777 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Who produces the show? Fox. Shouldn't they be considered the reference then as far as seasons are concerned? Makes the most sense to me.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.0.149 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Burger Kitchen

I watched the rerun on Fox tonight and when the vile owner/dad pulled out the book he'd written about his father, I realised his father was none other than Abe Saffron. See also this Daily Telegraphy article Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit section

I've been attempting to add some clarity to the lawsuit section by pointing out that the Dillon's/Purnima episode from which the lawsuit originated was from Season 1 of the series. Another editor won't allow this for some reason. Does it not improve the article to have this mentioned in the section? Why force the reader to go looking through the article or elsewhere for the information for no good reason? ChakaKong^talk 15:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of what another editor does/doesn't allow (does no one get that any longer?) but that other editors have the right to remove an edit with which they don't agree. Yours imparted no new information and interrupted the flow of a sentence, although I doubt much of anyone really cares which season Dillon's was in, given the lack of attention to that section for some while. Regardless, a link would have been more appropriate, although it's hardly onerous to glance through the table to find which season an episode appeared. As I'm sure you've noticed, Aussie Legend has now added that link, which has restored the flow of the sentence and taken the editor directly to the relevant episode.--Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A third party seems to have found a workable solution, so thanks for that. Drmargi: Per guidelines, you probably should have made an effort to fix the issue instead of just reverting again and again and potentially starting an edit war. Yes, you have the right to remove an edit with which you don't agree. We all do. If you felt the flow of the sentence was interrupted, why not fix it? Simply reverting everything you don't agree with will only lead to problems. Anyway, it's fixed now, so thanks again to AussieLegend for taking the high ground. ChakaKong^talk 19:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fix the problem applies in various ways depending on the editor's perception of what is/isn't a problem. I didn't see your edit as a problem needing fixing other than by removing what I saw as a pointless bit of information readily available a few inches up screen, and edited accordingly. I only noted the option to insert the link here because Aussie Legend had already done so, and I wanted to prevent further reverting on your part. Moreover, I'd be very, very careful about pointing the edit warring finger, particularly in this instance -- per WP:BRD, if you objected to my revert, you should have opened a discussion, not reverted my edit while demanding an explanation in the edit summary (we don't discuss via edit summary). And then when I provided one, my second edit being a direct response to your request, you should not have reverted again before discussing. When an edit is contested, the article stays at the stable version, which would not include the parenthetic comment. So, you tell me who's edit warring here, if anyone is. I see you're a new editor, and I'd be cautious about attempting to school other editors on policy so soon in your career, particularly in this instance, where your actions were incorrect as I've noted above. --Drmargi (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I did open a discussion, this is why we're here. Don't give me grief when you were every bit as guilty as I was in terms of reverting. And no, I am not a new editor, I've been here doing this for several years. You're claim that my "actions were incorrect" is strictly your interpretation and is not a fact. And yes, it IS recommended that we explain ourselves in our edit summaries, I find it odd that an experienced editor such as yourself would claim otherwise. At any rate, the issue has been resolved, I see no point in bickering with you any longer. Enjoy your day. ChakaKong^talk 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, and only after two reverts, rather than when you should have. You're welcome to try to side step this one, but an informative edit summary and discussion via edit summary are not the same thing, just as discussion at last rather than at once doesn't satisfy BRD. And if you are as experienced an editor as you claim, despite only 600 edits on record, you should doubly be aware how that works. The WP:BURDEN is on you as the editor wanting to make the change, something fewer and fewer editors care to accept. --Drmargi (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED! All you're doing at this point is trying to convince yourself that you were right and I was wrong. Take a deep breath and walk away. ChakaKong^talk 23:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Episode numbering

There's a bit of an edit war developing over the numbering of the "Revisited" episodes. From the first of these, they were never numbered, although I've long ago forgotten why. A new editor insists the episodes should all be numbered, so I'm opening this thread to get a discussion going, and perhaps ferret out the old reason why the weren't. --Drmargi (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

From this discussion, it would seem that Fox decided to renumber the episodes quite some time after they aired, likely for marketing purposes. I noticed something similar with Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 23:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This does seem inconsistent that they have a "No. in series" but not a "No. in season". Before this edit there was no number for either. I do think that if the series number increases then it should also have an episode number, which is what the sources currently say. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode entries have to have a unique number in the "No. in series" field (EpisodeNumber) to allow for linking to individual episodes, which is why all episodes were uniquely numbered when I converted from table format to {{Episode list}}. "No. in season" (EpisodeNumber2) fields can contain (almost) anything. For example, revisit episodes could be "Rn" (where n is a number). Subject to finding out what the original agreement was, I'm not against renumbering the season episode numbers to reflect reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The revisited and regular episodes are two different types of episodes. I think what we decided way back when was to go with the original numbering, which did not include the Revisisted episodes, and not make any changes when the Fox website rather oddly adjusted some early episode numbers with no explanation. --Drmargi (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Season Numbering

I noticed a number of sites listing the seasons as 5 and some of the listing it as 6. Fox the official site of this series lists it as 5, yet it's listed here as 6.

I wonder why the discrepancy? Should we not be listing he information as it is stated on the Fox Website?

Pirhounix 14:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs)

Open/Closed

There should be extra info to show if these places are still active or not.--andreasegde (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check the archives for this article. You'll see this has been extensively discussed, and there are a whole list of policy issues that the addition of status creates. The article is about the show and what Gordon Ramsay did during a finite period of time, not the long-term fate of the restaurants themselves. If the restaurants are notable enough, they will have their own articles that keep track of their fate (you'll see in the discussion that another editor draws an analogy to what happens to competitors on shows like Survivor). Moreover, simply listing open or closed, assuming you can accurately verify and source the status of all the restaurants, implies Ramsay is directly and solely responsible for their fate. That's far from accurate: there are far too many other factors that contribute to whether the restaurants stay open or close, not the least of which being the economy and how well they maintain the changes Ramsay made; in the earliest discussion, which is probably in Archive 1, I researched some of the first and second series restaurants, and found closures were due to factors such as owners' lack of interest in continuing in the business, bad PR, failure to pay taxes and health department violations, for example, none of which has anything to do with Ramsay. And realistically, how long after the fact are we going to keep track of these places? At some point, we have to recognize this wanders into the realm of fancruft and let it go. --Drmargi (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I AGREE-WIKI should include success rates at the very least. I myself wouldn't let him within a mile of any business I had. Gordon's show also has a formula that might as well be scripted..he always walks away beloved before the same changes as a simpler menu and decor. Yet,I think 9 out of 10 shops he touches, closes..some before the episodes even aired. His impact is only to terrorize owners. A shame that that the premise is in fact, false. Gordon Ramsay doesn't have a real clue to turn around what he doesn't own. 1 in 10 or 2 in twenty isn't results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you, with 100% certainty, reliably source that all the restaurants that close do so because of Ramsay's intervention? No. We did the research on the first and second season restaurants during earlier discussions, and found most closed for other reasons: owners failing to pay taxes, health department closures, foreclosure, and owners who simply didn't want to stay in the restaurant business were all factors. A couple were sold, one because of the owner's health. One notable one blew out everything Ramsay did and went right back to his old ways, then closed. Including a success rate without documenting the contingencies behind the closures paints a very distorted picture, and lacks any measure of neutrality. And then there's the issue of how far into the future these updates are done, and when they cease to have any relevance whatsoever to what Ramsay did. One restaurant recently closed, three years after Ramsay's visit, because its owner committed suicide. What's that got to do with Ramsay? --Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did research and added in whether or not the restaurants are open as of 03.02.2012. Whether or not Ramsay was responsible for the success or failure of these businesses, people like me would like a handy place to know what happened to the restaurants after watching episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.209.146 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people "might like" to know. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page or a handy reference guide for restaurant fans (that's what Yelp and Urbanspoon do.) The show is about what Ramsay does when he's there, not about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact. If the restaurants are notable enough, they will have their own articles, where their closures or continuing success can be noted. But here, it's all about Ramsay and what he does during the finite period of time he's in the restaurant, which is what the show presents. If you check the archives for this article, you will find extensive discussion and long-standing consensus not to include the updates, along with a detailed explanation of the policies such updates fail. --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping in an attempt to force the edit won't help your case. Discussion here might. --Drmargi (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the wall of open/close text, and I do agree with what they say about having an open/closed status; but if you're so concerned about Wikipedia policies, take a look at what Bar Rescue did in that aspect, using the "Notes" after the last season listed. CasanovaUnlimited (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

if you want to make a case for this article, it's probably best you avoid that one. Just because one article lists open/closed statuses doesn't mean they all should. Furthermore, there are exactly zero sources for any of those closings on that article, at first glance. I'm tempted to edit them out, but, with an 11 month old, it's just not top priority. Maybe later. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a case. There's been plenty of that already. Instead, I'm making a plea. Wikipedia has become the "Go to" place to find any relevant source of information, even more-so than Google, and as such articles like this transcend the usual policies and guidelines that are being enforced. People want to know what happened to these places after Gordon left, and there is no single source on the internet that has the information, nor is there any reputable site that has recent information regarding these places; so this article, with any relevant source material found, can be the first place on the internet that has the info, and said info can be removed from the page later when a reputable site has a page dedicated to this. CasanovaUnlimited (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20299_5-depressing-realities-behind-popular-reality-tv-shows.html MMetro (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? Cracked is hardly a reliable source and of the two sources they use for their information, one is completely unreliable and the other has shoddy reliability as well (most of its sources are unreliable, making the entire thing suspect). Furthermore, simply having a source does not negate all of the other reasons to not include the statuses, which have been discussed ad nauseam. Indeed, even this very article states one of the big reasons we don't include them here (which is that Ramsay and his show are, ultimately, not responsible for the restaurants closing). ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The argument & plea that should finally put the matter to rest...

To "Drmargi": I first read this entire section maybe a couple months ago (so, then, maybe, as of this writing, around late May or early June of 2012, or thereabouts) after the very first time I ever tried to find-out what happened to a couple of the restaurants that I saw featured on the Kitchen Nightmares program as broadcast on BBC America (which I've been watching for only a relatively short time). And I've been pondering everything here, ever since. So I really do understand your points, Drmargi; and, moreover, in isolation, I agree, pretty much completely, with every last one of them. However, our very culture, and the changes it sometimes forces on us, sometimes dictates that we can't really look at any of this in true isolation. I beg your indulgence for a moment, then, while I ask you, now, to both reconsider allowing a list of still-open and closed-or-sold restaurants, but done in a truly responsible (which I realize seems impossible, but just hear me out) manner. I humbly pray that you're not so weary of the subject that you'll just dismiss it, out of hand. Please give me a fair hearing, here.

I'm a management consultant (though I concede that only a small percentage of my clients, over my 35 or so years of doing it, were restaurants); one whose firm boasts "crisis management" as one of its areas of expertise. That's, in fact, the thing I've been doing the longest, though it accounts for a relatively small percentage of my firm's overall revenue. My point, though, is that I've actually done sorta' what Ramsay does (sans the cooking expertise, of course; and though I never speak abusively to my clients, as Ramsay obviously thinks is necessary in order to make the show more interesting) in any number of both businesses, and business types; and so not only do I find it all kinda' weirdly fascinating, but I think I have a perspective worth considering.

At least part of my -- and pretty much anyone's, truth be known -- understandable fascination with this whole thing necessarily includes whether whatever Ramsay suggested actually worked; and, of course, the most obvious salient indicator of that could (and I emphasize that word) be whether the restaurant is still open weeks, months or years later (and, yes, I understand your valid counter arguments... please just keep reading, with an open mind).

Obviously, the more time that has elapsed between Ramsay's visit, and the subject restaurant's closing or being sold, then the intuitively less likely Ramsay had anything to do with it...

...especially because, yes, you're absolutely correct: So many of the restaurants -- most of them, in fact -- had so much wrong with them, even before Ramsay arrived to try to save them, that they probably would have closed or been sold almost no matter what anyone did. As a consultant, few -- including possibly even you -- understand all that better than do I. I've consulted with many businesses that retained me after it was actually too late. When so, though, unlike Ramsay, I've always had the courage -- nay, the ethical responsibility -- to say that I probably can't fix it; that it's probably already overwith... moot. Perhaps I can more easily do that because, unlike Ramsay, I have no TV show, the very subject matter of which is the attempt to save the business. As a practitioner of the comparatively-passive martial art of Hapkido, which uses one's opponent's attack energy against him/her, my normal procedure, at that point, is to show the business owner how to do an orderly shut-down or sale of the business (or substantially all its assets) in a manner which complies with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that will also ultimately result in the best possible both practical and financial outcome for at least the owner; and, if s/he consents, for all others concerned, as well (remember that the owner, and not all others, is my client, and so s/he comes first; but it's always nice if I can convince him/her to take into consideration how the closing/sale will affect others, too, and to then act accordingly).

You wrote: "The show is about what Ramsay does when he's there, not about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact."

I'm sorry, but that's just, categorically, inaccurate... and both observably and intuitively so.

Yes, the show's about what Ramsay does when he's there, but part of what he does when he's there is to proverbially teach a man to fish, not merely feed him a fish; to take what he teaches them and to keep going with it after he's gone, else the restaurant, is the clear implication, will fail. The Chef even says as much, somewhere, somehow, in every episode... often at the end, as a way of driving-home the notion and leaving the viewer with that to ponder...

...hence the reason so, so, so many people wonder what actually did happen; and so, then, why there are literally thousands of Google searches on the restaurant's name, accompanied by the word "Ramsay" or the phrase "Kitchen Nightmares" right after an episode airs anywhere. How it turned-out is the implied (and quite intentional) cliffhanger, like at the end of an old Victorian novel, or silent film reel. The viewer is almost driven to find out... and quite by design, I might add. The show, and how it turns-out for the restaurant, are, then, inextricably connected; joined at the hip. It is, then, like it or not, indeed "about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact." To present, then, the Kitchen Nightmares story, here, without helping the reader know how it turned out for any given of the show's subject restaurants, is a bit like writing an article about some big cure for some disease about which everyone had once heard and cared, but without including whether or not it ever actually worked.

It's also a bit morally unfair, given that most people -- maybe even you, if you weren't so focused on it at the moment, and, therefore, on guard about it -- would probably happily give Ramsay the credit for the restaurant ultimately succeeding, if that's, in fact, what happened.

But there's a bit more of a basic issue at play, here. What's absolutely factual is whether or not the restaurant remained open after Ramsay left. That's provable fact, and discoverable, even if with some difficulty, to Wikipedia's standards. What isn't a fact, though, is whether anything Ramsay did had anything to do with it. You're correct about that. However, the two things have nothing, whatsoever, to do with one another.

To refuse to publish the facts for fear of fostering their insensibile misinterpretation (as long as such is not Wikipedia's doing by virtue of said facts having been presented in any manner misleadingly or confusingly), is categorically absurd. Implied by it is that it is somehow Wikipedia's responsibility to control the conclusions to which its readers come once they've read its presented provable facts. You're concerned about something that's just not any of Wikipedia's business; and the hopefully unintended consequence is tantamount to a form of censorship, in this particular case.

If you don't want opinion and/or conclusion published, that's fine... and fully understood... even agreed with. But to stop the publication of facts, because you're worried about what opinion or conclusion could result, takes the notion of "prior restraint" to a never-anticipated and downright ridiculous level!

It's facts, let's not forget, that we want to publish, here. Provable facts.

That readers will make what you and I agree is the insensible connection between those facts and whether or not Ramsay's actions were the proximate cause is simply human nature; part of our brains' need to connect cause and effect. But it's not unreasonable, as our refusal to publish the facts would seem to suggest we believe.

So hard-wired into our psyche is it that the connection actually occurs even before the occurance of what we believe to be the concomitant outcome. People don't hire me to try to save their businesses; rather, they hire me to actually save them. Drug companies don't create medicines to try to save people's lives; rather, they do so in order to actually save them. Professional baseball players don't spend extra time with the batting coach to try to raise their batting averages; rather they do so in order to actually raise them. And ailing restaurant owners don't invite Ramsay to come in and try to fix things so their businesses will not close; rather, they intend for him to actually so do. Intent usually only matters to prosecutors when they're figuring out how to charge a murder suspect; and so the connection between the show and the ultimate outcome for the restaurant is intuitive, natural, and inseparable. Our pretending otherwise is preposterous... and even dishonors, a bit, our very humanity.

Moreover, Wikipedia, itself, has set relevant precedent. The post-Ramsay's-visit restaurant's closing (or not) is inherently relevant. It matters, just as much it matters whether any plan to do something -- or any attempt to actually do it -- as described in other Wikidpedia articles, ultimately worked. To try to separate whether the plan and/or the attempt ultimately worked -- in other words, to try to disconnect intuitive and unavoidably relevant cause and effect -- then, is prima facie folly. And that's, in part, why there's been so much controversy about it, here; why you've had to keep explaining it and making your admittedly very valid (even if not necessarily sound, in some cases) points, here. People won't leave it alone because it never even occurs to them not to; nor, as you can see, is it easy to disabuse them of the notion.

And, yes, while you're theoretically right that Wikipedia should not necessarily cater to that, sometimes the will of society and culture can force referential sources to include information that its purists might consider to be contrary to both mission and charter. Just ask any of the English language purists (which I'd be, if I worked there) among those who publish most dictionaries.

Wikipedia is rife with articles that connect cause and effect. One cannot read, for example, a Wikipedia article about war, or any of its main characters; or about medical procedures, or psychological techniques; or about educational approaches, or long-term tactics; and so on, and so on, and so on...

...without said articles making the unavoidably inescapable connections between causes and effects; and -- and this is critical -- not all of which effects necessarily result from their stated causes as provably neatly and obviously as most of us would prefer! Yet there they are, in Wikipedia articles, anyway.

And that's because for said articles to fail to make such obvious connections is not only counter-intuitive, but it also flies in the face of the very nature of human curiosity, as well as all writers' implied responsibility to satisfy it... to provide some kind of closure. It is bordering on irresponsible, then, I argue, to ignore the outcome, whatever it is, of Ramsay's attempts...

...even though it's likely that a whole raft of other things which preceded Ramsay's involvement is the real reason they closed or were sold... or even remained open, for that matter.

Cause and effect is inescapbly -- often irritatingly -- a part of our lives. Even not-for-profit organizations, anymore, can't get away with not making the certain, direct-line connection between the money the foundations give them, and the both observable and quantifiable results... to the chagrin of nearly every Executive Director of every non-profit organization on the planet! Cause and effect, cause and effect. Can't live with it; can't kill it.

And even if making the cause and effect connection isn't warranted, special circumstances -- the realities of life and culture and society -- can change the playing field; and so can make it irresponsible for us to not make the obvious intuitive cause-and-effect connection with regard to such as Ramsay and whether his prescriptions actually work. For us not do so do can create an elephant in the room, as in this example...

I believe that everyone who isn't part of the so-called "Religious Right" would agree that neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" are "science," per se; and that the Religious Right's suggesting that science is no different from either creationism or intelligent design because of science's use of the term "theory" to describe its strongest points simply illustrates said Reglious Right's fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory," as used in science; and how said word differs, in science, from the word "hypothesis" and the whole world of scientific postulation, conjecture... even speculation.

Because both creationism and intelligent design fail the tests of provability which the world of science has long held are absolutely necessary in order to keep mere hypothesis and conjecture from being taught as scientific either theory or provable fact, hard scientists argue that if either creationism or intelligent design are taught in schools, then it should be as part of the philosophy or religion curriculum, not the hard science cirriculum. And I, for one, agree with that.

Until recently, scientists casually made the pro-forma argument contained in the immediately-preceding paragraph, and didn't really have to be too awfully vigilant about it. But in recent years the Religious Right has so tried to sneak both creationism and intelligent design into school curricula that the scientific community's vigilance has increased precipitously, and so it has all become a socio-politically big deal... a bona fide news story. Moreover, said vigilance has now escalated to the point -- to such a fever pitch -- that scientists argue that the word "creationism" and/or the phrase "intelligent design" shouldn't even be so much as 'mentioned' in hard science classes so that there cannot possibly be any student confusion...

...and right there is where even I -- one who agrees that neither creationism nor intelligent design should be taught as "science" -- think the scientists go too far. I believe that recent years' activities by the Religious Right have now made creationism and intelligent design such elephants in the "pure science" room that to not at least mention and explain them, as part of teaching real and hard science, borders, now, at long last, on the irresponsible. It's downright necessary, now...

...just as much as teaching about the hypothesis and postulations in the world of hard science, but which could never be proven to the point of becoming bona fide theories, are necessary to hard science's very teaching. To teach what made it to the level of theory in hard science, without also explaining what didn't, would be irresponsible, indeed.

So, too, then, because of what's going on in real life -- in our culture -- would it be irresponsible not to teach the facts about creationism and intelligent design right in hard science classes. But I don't mean teaching them as science. Rather, I mean teaching about them, and their role in our current society; about how many in society are demanding that they be taught as science, and why; and then explaining why they're not science, and then showing how they should be taught, instead... and also why. In other words: It should all be taught so that it not only acknowledes the creationism and intelligent design elephant in the hard science room, but it also tackles it and wrestles it to the ground.

It's not, remember, so much the subject matter of either creationism or intelligent design which raises them to the level of being worth explaining (but not teaching as "science") in a hard science cirriculum; but, rather, it's that life's/culture's recent events now finally make it downright irresponsible not to explain them there.

This notion, though, scares hard scientists to death because they assume that even so much as mentioning either creationism or intelligent design in hard science classes gives them a tiny toe in which could, in time, result in their ultimate acceptance as real science. They fear that because of the facts' being such a hot potatoe, their mere presentation will cause students to come to wrong conclusions. Nothing could be more surprising, coming from scientiests, of all people. And it is, of course, ridiculous. It simply goes too far. It's as ludicrous as trying to teach sex education without actually mentioning sex. Yet just try to make the elephant-in-the-room argument in forums and newsgroups largely populated by hard scientists, and watch the fireworks! For people who are supposed to be open-minded, they can sure be closed-minded about what I'm arguing, here; many, in fact, can't even see it, for their zero-tolerance fervor!

Your steadfast refusal to include whether or not the Ramsay-helped restaurants are still open is, on one hand, good science; and for all the excellent reasons you cite. However, said steadfastness, is a bit like, in terms of its ridiculousness, that of the hard scientists...

...though for a different reason which, in your case, tries to insensibly disconnect intuitive cause and effect, and the very nature of man's curiosity about it; as well as ignores what, like it or not, has, because of what's going on in popular culture and our society, become and elephant in this Kitchen Nightmares room. Because, in part, of the very way that the show is produced, and its cliffhanger endings, people care about whether or not the Ramsay-helped restaurants ultimately succeeded or failed. There's just no escaping that; and whether or not they ultimately closed or were sold is provable fact. That they view whether the restaurant failed as an indication of Ramsay's effectiveness is none of our business as long as how we presented the facts was in no way misleading.

That said, their misinterpretation is a notion of which we are capable, by how we preface and explain the data, of which we're able to disabuse them. It might even be our implied responsibility to do at least that if we deign to present the list of restaurants, and which of them have closed or been sold... regardless of when, or for what reason. That I suspect you can't see a good way of doing that is, no doubt, why you're afraid to do it at all.

It's human nature, though, no matter what we do or think, to automatically makes such connections; and it's folly to either pretend they don't, or to fail to provide the information they seek pursuant to it, as long as we do it in a manner that's responsible because it contains proper explanation and perspective... which I believe there's a way for us to do, here.

I actually know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way every time the Webster's Dictionary prople decide to add a word which, up to that point, I considered a bastardization of our beautiful English language. But if you talk to a linguist, or an English professor, you quickly learn that our language is dynamic and ever-changing; and to not try to change with it is just dumb... regressive, even. The events of our times can make even dictionary entries wrong; and so the dictionary must change to accommodate it. Wikipedia, also being a reflection of its culture and times, should do the same... but, again, only responsibly.

In deference to the excellent points you make about why it would be dangerous to do it in the case of this Kitchen Nighmares article, our doing it "responsibly," in my opinion, simply means prefacing it with how no conclusions as to the efficacy of Ramsay's prescriptions should be drawn from whether a restaurant, post-Ramsay, remained open, or was subsequently closed or sold; and then explaining why... especially including how most of them, because Ramsay likely wasn't called-in until it was probably too late, might have closed no matter what he did. How we'd actually word all that, of course, would be another matter; but I'm just saying that I believe it can (and should) be done.

Though I admit that I can see how even trying seems to depart from the cold, hard presentation of facts that should characterize any encyclopedia, it is nevertheless true that encyclopedias nevertheless routinely cross that line, by hook or by crook, all the time...

...as we see in the very kinds of articles to which I earlier referred regarding wars and its player, medicine and psychology, education and its strategies, etc....

...all of which contain no end of both cause and effect, and even analysis thereof. It's simply imposible to avoid a little of that in any comprehensive coverage of something like what Ramsay (or any war general, or football coach) both planned and did; and our trying to avoid it just leaves a big, gaping hole in the information set for the reader who came here in search of answers.

Providing the information that popular culture demands to know with regard to Ramsay and whether anything he did ultimately helped, is little different from a hard science teacher recognizing that popular culture has finally made necessary the responsible (albeit distasteful) explanation of creationism and intelligent design, and why they're not actually science, and in what kind of currcula they should be taught, instead.

A list of still-open and closed/sold restaurants (along with all the responsible caveats and warnings about how and why it should not be considered an indication of Ramsay's effectiveness) could (and should) be included as a part of this Kitchen Nightmares article; however, I wonder if one of the ways of disconnecting it, a bit, from whether or not Ramsay bears any direct or indirect responsibility might be to give the list its own Wikipedia page...

...in much the same manner as a musical artist's discography, or the branded products in a certain software category, are often given their own Wikipedia pages.

As for finding reliable sources, that's relatively easy... at least theoretically. Ramsay and his show coming to any town is always big local news, and so local media always writes about it; and invariably also always writes about when said restaurants subsequently close or are sold (because they, too, make the painfully obvious, even if insensible, connection between Ramsay's prescriptions, and whether they work). The trick is to simply hunt down the articles; and when the newspaper or radio or TV station's website is so poorly designed that its articles can't be effectively crawled by the Google search engine spider, then the trick is to use Google to at least figure out what local media covers the restaurant's geography, and to then either email and/or pick-up the phone and call said media and ask for the URLs of its stories about the restaurant. Trust me: There's always a story; it's just a matter of finding it. So my point is that it can all probably be fairly well documented, but it would simply take a bit of extra work to do it to Wikipedia's standards.

And when that's done, then it is fact, not conjecture, opinion, or conclusion. Your trying to stop that because you fear wrong conclusions will be drawn is irresponsible. Equally irresponsible would be our not providing relevant explanation of those facts so that the readers' marginal propensity to misinterpret them is substantially reduced. The only difference between the two is that the former is tantamount to censorship, whereas the latter is just bad form.

I, for one, would rather risk bad form than be party to censorship. And if we do it right, it won't even be bad form.

So, then, that's my argument... my pitch, as it were. Though it's long (and thank you for wading through it), the upside of its comprehensiveness is that if it fails, here, then it should, I would think, finally put the entire matter to rest and end the whole discussion...

...in largest measure because, humility be damned, it's hard to imagine anyone here making a better case for it than I've just made; or better giving you something to ponder and/or respond to as you reconsider. You did, after all, write, here, that though "IP hopping in an attempt to force the edit won't help ... [d]iscussion here might."

Fine. My foregoing is one helluva' discussion.

Tag. You're it.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't be it if I decline to play, which I do. This treatise appears to be directed at me rather than to the community as a whole. As such, it belongs on my talk page. I haven't got time or the inclination to read a screed of this length any time soon, to be perfectly honest, so please be patient if I don't reply for some time. While you're waiting, you might read the archived discussions here and for the UK show, noting the range of policy issues raised by a sizable number of editors. And for future reference: parsimony is your friend. --Drmargi (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, being long-winded is a fantastic way to get any points you're trying to make be ignored. People don't want to read 25,000 character essays on here when trying to come to a decision (I understand this was meant for Drmargi, but you left it here, not their personal talk page). They want a quick couple of paragraphs that make the point succinctly. I gave a legitimate shot at reading this and by 1/3 of the way through, I got so put off by all of your tangents and original research and ~feelings~ that I skimmed through the rest. From what I can gather, you made precisely zero arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's what matters in this discussion. Period. If you, yourself, said you agree with the reasons we've left them out, but still cry foul because you think discluding the updates, the only purpose of which is to satisfy fans, is "censorship" then I'm not really sure what else to tell you other than try again and use actual policies next time, rather than your gut feeling, which really has no place on Wikipedia. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 16:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution ITB! You've been a key part of this discussion all along, and your voice is every bit as important as mine. I can't even make it 1/3 of the way through the post. I'm sure it's all in good faith and designed to help, but I can't get through it, having gotten bogged down in some early contradictions. But I'll keep trying. --Drmargi (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So its it possible to reopen the discussion about the closed/open status of the restaurants that were featured in the show? Can we also look at an arbitration process to settle this matter? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.0.232 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? It's really been done to death. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Roman. It's been talked to death, and consensus never changes. The policy arguments are too strong. --Drmargi (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think putting this matter to an arbitration committee would be a good idea. There has never been any sort of definite consensus or final agreement and I agree with Aussie's comment that this discussion has been done to death like for the last 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.0.232 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Two issues: a. it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria for Arbcom and; b. You'll be in front of SPI and blocked for socking yet again, Roman. --Drmargi (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Type of cuisine

Why is there no information on the type of cuisine of the restaurants featured on the show? 143.238.116.174 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you're using something novel to stir up trouble, Roman. Knock it off. --Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there should be information about the type of cuisine being served in each restaurant since this is a show about food.121.216.198.202 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not about food though. It's about poorly performing restaurants. Food is just a background aspect. If we were to talk about food, we'd have to talk about the types of furniture, kitchen appliances and so on, because they're equally relevant to the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

More accurately, it's about one chef's efforts to renovate a restaurant in order to give it a second chance to survive. But you know that Roman. Find somewhere new to play. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Restaurant Closures

Why is there no followup information about the closures of the restaurants who have participated in this show?121.216.198.202 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about a television series. If it's not mentioned during the episode, or in reliable sources specifically addressing the series, it's irrelevant here. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't start, Roman. I've already alerted Moonriddengirl; one more post and I'll request she protect this talk page. Find something else to do. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree if it is covered in a reliable source it can be mentioned. For most of the restaurants the notability was from the show so they can directly tie in. FOr example [[2]] is an article that doesn't mention the restaurant in the title but it does the show. It's my opinion that makes it notable and should be covered. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: That (paid access) article is solely about the restaurant and only mentions the show tangentially. Further, the closing is 2 years after the episode; to me, that gives the closure a very dubious connection to the show. DP76764 (Talk) 20:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus, based in a sizable body of policy, and lengthy discussion (see the archives) that supports no updates. The show is about Ramsay's efforts to give a restaurant a second chance, not the restaurants and their status at some in determinant point in time.

But all that is beside the point. The OP is Roman888 a site-banned user who occasionally uses IP to evade his block/ban to stir up trouble here. He's not here to contribute to the project. He's here to win any way he has to and to make as much trouble as possible. --Drmargi (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok can you link me to a discussion please? I came across this incidentally and had there not already been a section I intended to raise the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Start in Archive 2 and have fun -- you'll have no problem finding the discussion and all of Roman's attempts to restir the pot. It goes, and goes, and goes all through Archives 2-4. Then, head over to the UK shows for more of the same. You'll find that there are about four or five policies that more than amply make the case for leaving the updates out, along with the issue of a cause-and-effect that can't be addressed. Have fun. Make a sandwich and grab a cold drink before you wade in. Oh, and be prepared; you'll meet many of Roman888's socks and IPsocks. --Drmargi (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, It might have taken a 30 pack lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's an option, but do be sure to keep AA on speed dial. --Drmargi (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparing outcomes

Troll or no troll, for me as a user the success rate, or lack thereof, as the case may be, of these makeover shows was and is interesting. I did find a list of restaurants featured in this show and information on whether they were still open on one page online. Whether that information would meat the credibility bar of the source gurus I don't know. For comparison sake, though, the authors of our Restaurant Makeover page seem to have been able to find and maintain relevant information. Fighting about something that would make a page more relevant to users just for the sake of principle seems a lot of effort for little or no effect IMHO. Would be happy if we could get more info about the show on this page. This kind of show seems like diet plans with the one slim model promising weight loss and everyone else just losing time, money and hope. A somber list of outcomes would disclose this series of magic tricks as smoke and mirrors. 99.11.162.138 (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are issues on every page on Wikipedia. We should not follow the lead of other articles that violate various guidelines and policies just because there are other articles that contain similar information. The goal should be to make those other articles adhere to policy and guidelines, not use it as an example to break policies and guidelines. "People find it interesting" is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. At any rate, this has been discussed many times and all of those discussions can be found in the talk archives. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first rule and one of the fundamentals of wikipedia is "there are no rules". The goal isn't to make articles adhere to policies, but to have good articles.

If there are relevant information from dependable sources, it should be included. 78.70.77.75 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source from the Daily Mail.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how credible that source is. For example, it claims that Lela's closed during filming but that is not what is shown in the episode. The episode shows Ramsay leaving with the restaurant open but then says it closed months later. The various websites that we can't use as references all support this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed that source previously. It's out of date, does not state why the restaurants closed but rather assumed failures on Ramsay's part, and has several inaccuracies. There are two fundamental issues here that make the inclusion of updates inappropriate, beyond the much-discussed policy ones: a. the show is about what Ramsay does to give the restaurants a chance at success, not about the restaurants themselves; and b. simply stating they have closed blames Ramsay, when a good few closed or were sold for other reasons that the lack of success of his improvements. A couple of examples: Fiesta Sunrise was closed for failure to pay taxes, one of several for which that is true; Lela's was so heavily in debt that nothing Ramsay could have done would have saved it and she closed before the episode was broadcast; and the Black Pearl was closed by one stroppy owner in a fit of pique following the show. Several were closed by the health department for sanitary issues and a number went back to their old menus, then failed, including Hannah and Mason's and Down Street. Moreover, Charlie's isn't closed; they've confused it with an older restaurant with a similar name that had closed long before production. Even with this handful of examples, it's clear this paints a much different picture of Ramsay's success/failure rate, how appropriate it is to attribute closures to him, and how meaningful open/closed updates are. This has been discussed into the ground, if anyone would care to read the lengthy discussions in the archives. The "gee wouldn't it be interesting" element attached to simply listing open/closed status paints a very biased and incomplete picture, and just isn't a good enough reason to include information that is potentially inaccurate and doesn't rise to an encyclopedic standard. Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" does not mean what you seem to think it means: WP:IAR?. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kitchen Nightmares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316041846/http://www.suntimes.com:80/entertainment/elfman/563173,CST-FTR-elf19.article to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/elfman/563173,CST-FTR-elf19.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitchen Nightmares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925192440/http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/about/ to http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode summary: closures

Drmargi I think you're going to have to bring that one to the table. Edit summary isn't enough. Please justify revert by copying relevant link archive discussions here. Thanks. I appreciate it. Maineartists (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been a long-running issue. Try this for a start. In brief, the show is about what Ramsay does while he's there, not the eventual status of the restaurants. There are too many factors not related to his activities that lead to the sales/closures. Then, grab a sandwich and a cold drink, and head for Archive 2, which is entirely about the subject. You've been warned. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha! It's a good thing I didn't "grab a sandwich and a cold drink", I would have either choked on the sandwich or spit out my drink from laughing so much! What a farce those archives are! But this: "... not the eventual status of the restaurants." Really? The series itself goes back and "revisits" the restaurants; that is the very definition of "eventual status". What on earth does "factors relating to his activities that lead to the sales/closures" have to do with merely stating a single line of current operations. Absolutely no "factors" were presented. In addition, the tables already include change of names which has nothing to do with the show; as well as the Lawsuit section. If you're going to argue a point, don't be hypocritical. That being said, I have no dog in this fight. Have fun with continual editing of "your" page. Best, Maineartists (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT a hypocrite. How DARE YOU call me one? You drop in out of nowhere, and presume to judge the way you have, then laugh at what was at the time very serious, difficult discussion? What gall. I also resent the insinuation that this is "my" article. I expect you to rescind your personal attacks immediately. I get that you're pouting that your edits were reverted, but there is a process for making change, and issuing a string of insults at me isn't part of it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, no need for "capital" letters. I can hear you just fine. Second, I did not call you a hypocrite; I pointed out the hypocritical argument that you presented regarding restaurant "status" and "extended information" outside of the show itself; which is presented on the page in some forms, but not others. Third, "dropping in out of nowhere" is precisely how WP works. If you have trouble with this modus operandi, then perhaps WP is not for you. Re: "gall" - I haven't had gall since the early 80s; so I doubt that is a valid description. As for "pouting", let's not pick up that stone; out of the two - I'm pretty much fine on this side; in fact, I'm down right giddy - but if you really need a "rescind": I rescind. Continuing, the edit history for the article suggests that the "consensus" (2009) was not only limited, tainted (sockpuppet IP) but undetermined with inconsistent vote count; as there (since that discussion) have been more editors wishing to include the closures (2016-2017) than the one editor who continually monitors the page and reverts their edits: you. To be productive here: the next time you revert what other editors find to be informative to the article, perhaps you should read up on: WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. Also, "consensus" can be revisited after a certain amount of given time with newly discovered evidence, editor activity and proper reason for justification. But as I said, I have no dog in this fight. Finally, as for: "String of insults" - in the immortal words of Sergeant First Class Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis." Best Maineartists (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just the testosterone laden response I expected: blow in, don't bother to read the archives, then presume you've got the whole picture when you're clueless, have a laugh at everyone's expense, sling a few insults when you can't have your way, then pick up your toys and leave. Buh-bye. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

There it is: the psychology. Female here, too, Doc. No drugs in the system yet. Have read all Archives #'s 1-2-3-4: twice. Didn't laugh at anyone's expense, only the "so-called" consensus that is being enforced here at this page for your continued reverts. Could care less about getting my own way; the insults were a bonus. Never had any toys; I was a neglected child. Shall I order us another round of tea? or would you care to actually address some of the questions above in the first part of this exciting exchange? debating rather than deflecting to an archived discussion from 2009. Maineartists (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, no. I see no policy or other basis for adding increasingly irrelevant content about a show that ended three years ago. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We weren't talking about adding "increasingly irrelevant content." We were addressing the singular edit that keeps surfacing regarding one specific inclusion regarding the simple closure of the restaurants. Nothing more. The reception section clearly shows that the investment of the audience is not on Ramsay, cuisine or his involvement; but the "family dramas at the restaurants resulting in mishap, argument and emotional breakdown." Otherwise, there would not be this website devoted entirely to the episodes and establishments for the viewing populous: Reality TV Revisited (3 shows of which are Ramsay's). To hide behind a non-existent policy at WP and a discussion from 2009, speaks louder than an argument of your interest for a show that ended 3 years ago. You simply cannot argue "irrelevant content" and include: "restaurant renames" / Lawsuits section (since many establishments claim they closed due to the TV series, too; lawsuit or not) / See also section / and Notes. Sorry, one cannot have it both ways. As you said, this is not your article; and there is a process. It strayed far too OT during the archival discussions from the OP: simple inclusion for closures to policy, editor behavior and "irrelevant content". Perhaps it needs to be re-evaluated. Maineartists (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kitchen Nightmares. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028023623/http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/154/index.jsp to http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/154/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011154109/http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/ to http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140919004211/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/15/friday-final-ratings-48-hours-adjusted-up-dateline-adjusted-down/302762/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/15/friday-final-ratings-48-hours-adjusted-up-dateline-adjusted-down/302762/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011154109/http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/ to http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Criminal offences

In Ramsey's native England, if the state and practices of the restaurants he advised on were as shown on these TV programmes, these restaurant operators would have been prosecuted for serious breeches of food hygiene laws by the UK's Environmental Health Officers. The offences are in the UK criminal offences, probably known as felonies in the USA. Does the USA have the equivalent of UK's food hygiene laws? How could these American restaurants be allowed to open to the public, because in the UK they would have been closed down by the government? And has anybody felt they wanted to puke after seeing these TV programmes because they ate at these restaurants prior to Ramsey's involvement, and that their health and safety had been compromised when eating at these places. Is the advice not to eat at American restaurants because it would appear the US government does not involve themselves in inspecting their eating places? If the US does have food safety laws and inspectors, then are Ramsey's programmes actually for real? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:3D28:F6A9:7B2E:B5C5 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a discussion board, but a place to improve the article. Second of all, the jurisdictional structure of the U.S. is far more complex and these matters are left to smaller units of government (states and counties). A matter of this size won't make anything beyond very local news. That doesn't mean something isn't being done. Lastly, I don't recall seeing any of the U.K. restaurant owners being prosecuted. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to second that IP user. I think it would be, in fact, an improvement to the text if it is stated whether it is real or fake. One hint could be what he or she stated. But, however, it is not the task of wikipedia to find theories about that. So, if there are some reliable sources which I don't know I think it is reasonable to add such a section to the text. --Kontemarlos (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)::

In one, Ramsay picked up a rotting dead rat with his bare fingers. Then he went on to cook with bare hands. God, I am not going to eat any food that man prepared, not even if he paid me!!! Is this show on parr with other US shows like Judge Judy or Jerry Springer? Or is it just that US eating places are disgusting. 109.156.178.223 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6074689/New-Orleans-restaurant-sues-Gordon-Ramsay-Kitchen-Nightmares.html 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:5168:6C55:63C:6BD (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he would've washed his hands in between touching the rat and cooking the food - you can only fit so much in a 45 minute program and it's well known that there is lot that ends up being cut for time.77.44.46.232 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What "continuing story elements"?

@Maineartists: Please explain what you mean when you say the show has "continuing story elements"?

For the record, WP:NCTV says this about "non-series" television shows: Each episode of an on-going show usually is self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, hosts, and other on-air personalities. These shows generally lack on-going narrative or story elements.

I've been under the impression is that each episode of this show is a contained story where Ramsey comes in and "fixes a restaurant". The next episode is then Ramsey at a new and different restaurant. Is this not correct? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, gain consensus here and then change these too: Ramsay's Hotel Hell, Hell's Kitchen, MasterChef (U.S. TV series) etc and change section titles such as "series host" for fellow chef: Anthony Bourdain [3]. I think you are mistaking the definition of "story" when it comes to these TV series. Maineartists (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's an WP:OSE argument – the fact that the language used at other articles is incorrect doesn't justify keeping this article's incorrect. But, I'm asking again – is each episode of this TV show "self-contained": yes or no? If the answer is "yes", then the words "TV series" should be avoided here, and the words "TV program" should be used instead. This is all from WP:NCTV, not me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, to clarify, shows like MasterChef (U.S. TV series) or American Idol or The Voice (U.S. TV series), and other reality competition shows in that vein, do have "continuing elements" (e.g. continuing competition elements, and contestants who carry on from episode to episode), and so are true "TV series" under WP:NCTV. But it looks to me like this, Hotel Hell, Hell's Kitchen, are properly described as "TV programs", not "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to get into semantics. I merely contested your edits on a long standing entry that I felt did not warrant an edit. Let others weigh in. Gain consensus here and you can rv as you see fit. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Throwing my hat into the ring: I agree with IJBall with regards to the definitions as outlined in WP:NCTV and that Kitchen Nightmares and Hotel Hell would fall under Program and not Series - unlike Hell's Kitchen which features the same cast, albeit being whittled down, for an entire season at a time, which would fall under the Series heading. However I would like to open up the discussion of why there needs to be distinction of this nature regarding television shows. In common parlance series and program/me are freely interchanged when talking about whatever we've been viewing; indeed some definitions of series are as follows - 'a set or sequence of related television or radio programmes.' (Google search), 'a set of regularly presented television programs each of which is complete in itself.' Merriam-Webster[[4]] and 'A set or sequence of related television or radio programmes. Oxford Dictionaries[[5]]. So if someone can provide a clear reason for needing the distinction and why Wikipedia doesn't follow the dictionary definition's model, I'm all ears. 77.44.46.232 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Corrections

Sebastian's is in Burbank, CA not Toluca Lake.

Zocalo is in Chicago not Philadelphia. Megacheez (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)