Talk:Kitchen Nightmares/Archive3

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)