Talk:Restaurant: Impossible/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revert criticism

Since Drmargi hasn't responded on her page... I'm really annoyed with the revert. "Rewrite gives undue attention to allegations with no substantiation. It's easy to whine in the media after the fact, and this level of detail is not needed?" What crap! I'll say it again: I wrote about the owners' criticisms of their makeovers. Your version reads like a PR piece. You can't tell me that's legitimate Wikipedia style! I'm not getting into a revert war; I want you to change it back. If you want to go to moderation, fine. Have at it. GeorgeC (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you don't set the timeline for when an editor replies, and should expect to be patient. This is a leisure activity and a stress-reducer for me, not my occupation. I have a very time-intensive job that occupies most of my time, and I don't appreciate having a dig taken because I didn't reply fast enough to suit you. Secondly, this is a shared effort, not "my version." The additions you made are a) overly lengthy and detailed; b) placed so as to draw excessive and undue attention to the claims made by a couple disgruntled restaurant owners and c) their word against Irvine's. Moreover, the direct quotes are copyright violations. Placing the section on the owners' claims before the episode list is wholly inappropriate. I cut the content down to the salient points the first time you added it, within the bounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You had a few other additions that might have added some clarity, but the majority of what you put in was designed document in far too much detail and in the wrong place in the article the post-production claims (and yes, absent third party verification, they are claims) made by a couple restaurant owners who looked bad on the show. Remember, too; the article is about Irvine and his efforts, not the restaurants themselves or their fate after he leaves.

WP:BRD is now in play, and Wikipedia affords you remedies if you disagree with an edit. You are free to treat this as a discussion going forward (rather than issuing an uncivil edict), and build consensus for the additional content. You might want to check the archives of Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares for length discussion of similar matters and the consensus reached there. Remember, too, that this discussion will progress at whatever pace it progresses, not according to your timeline. Drmargi (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being "uncivil". The way the article is written now reads like a PR piece. Don't tell me that is appropriate. Put the criticism section after the episodes list, if you want. GeorgeC (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Expect to be patient?! I waited months for a reply below, but when I finally got around to the edit, you were reverting as I was editing. Stop bullying this page, Drmargi, and work for user consensus. MMetro (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of random bystanders, George's preferred version appears to be this one. The main substantive questions appear to be how much of the exact claims made by the crab place owner to include, and whether to mention the additional complaints made by the owner of the Dodge City restaurant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Blog post on Snooty Fox episode

While this probably isn't appropriate as a source for the main page, it was too fascinating to leave out. It's a lengthy blog post by the daughter of one of the people who came to the opening-night dinner at the Snooty Fox when the episode aired. It has many pictures. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Subject's reactions" section

I've found a number of sources quoting and discussing the reactions of various episode's subjects to their make-over (listed below). The three I'd found are all negative, but I'm sure with more digging positive reactions could also be found (I saw some on Facebook, but that's pretty much un-citable). Re-reading WP:EL, and thinking about what would be an appropriate way to include this material, I came up with the idea of a section called something like "Subject's reactions", which would collect, and neutrally summarize, this type of material. Reading over the Talk:Kitchen Nightmares archives (particularly Archive 2), I can very clearly see how exhausting and frustrating this discussion can get. I suppose I'll just leave the links here, then. Sigh. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The links I found:

• http://blogs.delawareonline.com/secondhelpings/2011/08/30/scrimmages-in-wilmington-gets-restaurant-impossible-treatment/
• http://blogs.delawareonline.com/secondhelpings/2011/01/25/restaurant-impossible-experience-not-a-happy-one-new-castle-restaurateur-says/ (I think this is linked already)
• http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/07/bumpy_ride_with_tvs_restaurant.html

JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this article is about the show and what takes place on the show, not about the restaurants. It's easy to lose sight of that. I'd refer you back to the Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares discussions, in which I was very actively involved, for much of the rationale against such a section -- there are a host of policy issues related to extensive documentation of post-show restaurant status. I have a "so-what?" response to reactions; they signed on, and got the publicity, and should expect that this wouldn't be like hiring a decorator and a restaurant consultant. Moreover, it's easy for owners say pretty much anything they want in the media after the fact (and after their faults have been aired nationally), and to have some participants' remorse. More problematic: we know local media aren't exactly unbiased, particularly in a David v. Goliath situation such as this one. None of it rises to a level of importance that merits documentation here. If there's evidence that the show tampered with what we saw so as to create drama, that's a different story and should be documented, as has been done. The big issue with George was that he was adding extreme detail, unquestioning acceptance of the content of the article (a WP:RS issue) and had some copyvio issues with the text itself. I cut it back to the salient details and balanced the presentation. Drmargi (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points. What drew me to be interested in the sources above was to learn more about how the production handled themselves, and how "real" the "reality" was. But sources are certainly very thin on the ground on that. I may try to dig up some more sources, but will probably just let things lie. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Restaurant Status Column

I would like to see a column with the current status of each restaurant, with a date stated for reference. I added one some time ago, and it was taken down almost immediately.

I feel this would be good information, especially since the official site ignores this (closures reflect badly on their show?). It gives the viewer additional information on the ultimate success of each intervention.

Can we discuss the pros and cons of this?

OLEF641 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been around and around and around this with this show, Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. These shows are about Ramsay and Irvine's efforts, not whether the restaurants stay open or not. --Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully submit we should restore the one for Valley View, as its closure before the episode even aired was noted within the episode itself. It's no different than mentioning a restaurant changing names or Cory Booker making a guest appearance, which are things noted for other eps. Raider Duck (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Designer Column

A column that lists the designer assigned to that restaurant.

Useful or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soursimon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant Makeover has such a column. MMetro (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Season Six

Season Six has episode titles that are not the name of the restaurant. Perhaps the formatting should change to reflect that? MMetro (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The name of the restaurant is what's important, not the episode title. The change would be jarring and less informative that retaining the restaurant name. --Drmargi (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is subjective. Bar Rescue, Mystery Diners, and Restaurant Stakeout list episode titles. The restaurants cannot be searched for by a DVR programming guide. MMetro (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Search by a DVR guide is not the function of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The most comparable shows, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and Kitchen Nightmares are both listed by restaurant name, and the titles are less informative, and encyclopedic, than the episode titles. If anything, the articles you cite should be changed. --Drmargi (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Episode titles are verifiable and not subject to change compared to the restaurant names, which are subject to name change or modification, inclusion or exclusion of words like restaurant, family, catering, cafe, or pizzeria. In addition, the show already has two episodes with restaurants named Sweet Tea, there is Valley Inn and Valley View. I don't mind keeping the restaurant names, but the episode titles serve a purpose. MMetro (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Image

[1] "Doesn't matter that it's from a different show. It's a free image of the host of this program." Wouldn't it be more suitable to have the logo of the TV series instead? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The title card is normally used in the infobox but there is no title card image uploaded to Wikipedia so we don't have the option of using one. In an article like this, it's perfectly acceptable and appropriate to use a free image of the host. Unfortunately, title cards are normally non-free so, even if a title card was available, it couldn't be used since it's not appropriate to replace a free image with a non-free image. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Request: Moving the Episodes to a Separate Page

The series had lasted for 13 seasons now. I believe that the episode list should be moved to a new page.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We normally split articles based on size and this article is not large at all. The episodes have no summaries, so they're just a series of tables and moving them would turn this article into a stub. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)