Talk:Peacock Alley (restaurant)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peacock Alley (restaurant). 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/20111010050305/http://www.michelinonline.co.uk/travelshop/star-history/2011/rg-roi.htm to http://www.michelinonline.co.uk/travelshop/star-history/2011/rg-roi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 04:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Bazza 7's talk page (at his request)

A disciplinary discussion in which you may become involved, or may wish to comment, is at WP:ANI here regarding possible disciplinary action against User:The Banner for edit warring at Peacock Alley (restaurant). Akld guy (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The only thing is that he misrepresents your stance, by claiming you said anything about "defunct restaurant" while you were responding on "former restaurant". The Banner talk 02:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:The Banner I can't see anything above about what I may or may not have said, nor any representation about any stand I may or may not have had. I can offer support to you by suggesting that calming down and reading what people write before responding is often a good way of working. Bazza (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By now, the block attempt of Akld guy has failed. By and large, he got explained that my understanding of "defunct restaurant" was correct and his not. So I have put a polite request on the Language page to restore the "defunct restaurant"-phrase but I am afraid Akld guy and Marrakech will ignore that. The Banner talk 10:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:The Banner I have seen that. My view is that "defunct" does not fulfil the Wikipedia requirement for using common terms. Nobody I know would say that "Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant in...", or "I see that Peacock Alley is defunct." They would say "Peacock Alley was a restaurant in...", or "Peacock Alley was/is a former restaurant in..." ("was" if the building of that name no longer exists, otherwise "is"); or "I see that Peacock Alley has closed/shut/ceased trading." I know you claim to be an excellent speaker of English, but the introduction on your User Page has a number of English grammar errors in it. I recommend you quietly and gracefully allow others, including me, to make changes to articles where the wording is less than optimal. Bazza (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I my English is not excellent but not half as rotten as A and M claim. And why should you "correct" something that is not wrong? Spoken language is often different from written language. The Banner talk 12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, since you ask Bazza 7 the rhetorical question "why should you "correct" something that is not wrong?" I would like to point out that the broadly supported 'was a restaurant' version actually preceded your contested 'is a defunct restaurant' phrasing. So by your own logic, why did you correct something that wasn't wrong? Marrakech (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not help to notice this edit. You know, your edit correcting something what was incorrect that started all the misery. The Banner talk 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

But how on earth can rectifying something that was indeed incorrect (everybody agrees that 'X is a former restaurant' is incorrect insofar as it doesn't convey the intended meaning) be wrong? Marrakech (talk) 13:

I missed a word You know, your edit correcting something into what was incorrect that started all the misery. The Banner talk 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So now we have come full circle, back to your outlandish claim that writing 'Peackock Alley was a restaurant' is in fact incorrect? Like I stated below: case closed. Marrakech (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as you keep ignoring the complete discussion, there is not much left to talk about. People stated that "defunct restaurant" is a correct phrase. Accept that. The Banner talk 20:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, this version

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Banner is engaged in an edit war against User:Marrakech and me over whether the Lead at Peacock Alley should read "is a defunct restaurant that was housed.." or "was a restaurant that was housed..". The restaurant is listed in Category:Defunct restaurants in Ireland, and this is the entire basis on which The Banner rests his case that "is a defunct.." is the correct phrase. The Banner is apparently not a native speaker of English, whereas I am and Marrakech appears to be also. He either cannot comprehend that "was" is appropriate because the restaurant closed in 2002 and there is no evidence to show that it might reopen, in which case "defunct" would be appropriate, or he is simply being an obstacle. Some edit warring here, here, here.

The subject has been much covered at RefDesk:Language here, where it started out as a dispute between The Banner and Marrakech over the awarding of a star rating for the restaurant. Note that User:Bazza 7 and User:Loraof indicated support for "was" rather than "defunct". It looks like The Banner is going to keep on edit warring over his silly wording until he gets his way, in the face of consensus between myself and Marrakech. I'm asking for a block of 7 days. Akld guy (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Akld guy is misrepresenting the case. Bazza 7 and Loraof agreed that is was better to use "was a restaurant" than "is a former restaurant". They have never ever spoken about there preference about "is a defunct restaurant". Unfortunately, Akld guy has no better arguments that some roaring about the fact that I am not a native speaker of English (true, I am a native Dutch speaker but live in Ireland since 2016) while he is. To my opinion, his language card he plays is not a fair one but feels like bullying. It is definitely to helpful for a meaningful discussion. The Banner talk 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Akld guy als played the language card in the original header of this discussion. See here: [1]. The Banner talk 02:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to state what "defunct" means in this context. When it is said that X is a defunct restaurant, the "is" means that the restaurant still exists, more or less as it was when operating, but it has been mothballed pending reopening, or in case it might reopen. Nobody has shown that this restaurant, which closed in 2002, still exists as a restaurant, or that reopening is pending. Given how long it's been closed, I would be surprised if the premises hadn't been put to some other use. Therefore, without evidence, it would be misleading to say that it is a restaurant that is defunct. If The Banner wants to claim defunct, he must show evidence that the restaurant is mothballed, with covers over tables, chairs. Akld guy (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of "defunct", too bad it flies in the face of what the dictionaries say it means:

• "no longer living, existing, or functioning" [2]
• "1. no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning: 2. no longer in existence; dead; extinct:" [3]
• "no longer existing: " [4]
• "No longer existing or functioning." [5]

As you can see, none of these carry the meaning "temporarily suspended operation". "Defunct" means "dead", period, and your "native English speaker" understanding of it is wrong, while that of the Dutch native speaker is correct. I suggest you stop edit-warring to remove "defunct", because it's accurate. Even if another restaurant were to open in the space, Peacock Alley, the subject of the article, would still be defunct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So now we can keep it as "was a restaurant" since it is no longer existing. "Defunct" is excessively wordy, and as I pointed out, "is a no longer existing restaurant" doesn't make sense. So can we have a decision on whether The Banner should be blocked for edit warring? Akld guy (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have a conflict of opinion going back years with The Banner over his interpretation of some of our notabillity issues, but his English is a lot better than that of a great many of the 'native' speakers on Wikipedia. Not only that, but in my experience (also as a linguist), and having lived in the Netherlands, I find that the use of English by Dutch people as non native speakers is probably some of the best in the world. I'm not sure about the edit warring (I haven't looked) but there are certainly no other grounds for requiring a block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

People here just don't seem to be getting it. If the sentence reads "X is a defunct restaurant", it clearly means that it exists (is) but is not functioning for some reason. For a restaurant that closed, apparently permanently, in 2002, it's not possible to say that it is a defunct restaurant, only that it was a restaurant. Akld guy (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Compare The Crystal Palace was a cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park to The Crystal Palace is a defunct cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park. Which of the two sounds better and more logical? Marrakech (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A bit of background. Originally the sentence read "Peacock Alley is a former restaurant", which didn't convey the intended meaning that the restaurant Peacock Alley does no longer exist. After an edit of mine changing the phrase to "was a restaurant" was promptly reverted by The Banner, I started the discussion that Akld guy refers to above. While that discussion was still underway, with "was a restaurant" gaining unanimous support, The Banner all of a sudden edited the phrase to read "Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant", after which he declared the discussion moot. Asked why he prefers 'is a defunct restaurant' over the perfectly simple, appropriate and broadly supported 'was a restaurant' solution, he wrote: "the company running the restaurant is out of business, while the actual location might still be there. "was a restaurant" signals to me that there is no restaurant at all, not as location, not as company". Which is indeed, as Akld guy stated, an absurd explanation. Marrakech (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

End copied text from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

'is a former restaurant' and 'awarded a star in 1998-2002'

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, this version Copy from July 8, as the case has not been concluded although the filer claims otherwise, seeing his edits
After seeing a contribution of mine reverted (here), I thought it best to discuss the changes I introduced here.

Recently I noticed that numerous articles on Michelin starred restaurants located in Ireland and the Netherlands include either one or both of the following phrases: 1) 'X is a former restaurant' and 2) 'X was awarded a Michelin star in the period YYYY-YYYY'.

I'll quote the text I modified in order to explain why I think these phrases are problematic.

1) Peacock Alley is a former restaurant

This I would construe as 'The venue called Peacock Alley used to house a restaurant, but is now in use for other purposes', while the intended meaning appears to be 'Restaurant Peacock Alley does no longer exist'. My suggestion therefore would be to simply write 'Peacock Alley was a restaurant.'

2) Peacock Alley was a fine dining restaurant that was awarded one Michelin star in the period 1998-2002

This wording strikes me as confusing, as it could be interpreted to mean that the restaurant was awarded that particular star at some unspecified moment between 1998 and 2002, while in fact it received the star in 1998 and managed to retain it until 2002. That's why I would prefer '(...) that held one Michelin star in the period 1998-2002' or a similar phrasing.

Any thoughts on the matter? Marrakech (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Both the company and the restaurant as independent restaurant do not exist any more.

Secondly, I would like it when you stop following me around. You are harassing me on the Dutch Wikipedia and now you bring the same disruptive issues here. You have clearly no respect for other editors and their writing style. The Banner talk 14:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of any tiff between the two contributors above, I agree that "X is a former restaurant" could be ambiguous, and that the simpler "X was a restaurant" would be preferable for clarity. For the star: "X was awarded a Michelin star in the period YYYY-YYYY" sounds a bit odd. "X held a Michelin star in the period YYYY-YYYY" might be more acceptable, but for simplicity and conciseness try "X was awarded a Michelin star from YYYY to YYYY". Bazza (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster and with Bazza. Loraof (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the latest compromise acceptable? Dbfirs 17:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Bazza's proposal: yes. Though I would prefer 'X held a Michelin star from YYYY to YYYY', which I think rules out any possible ambiguity, while at the same time providing a solution to the question raised by The Wiki ghost below. Marrakech (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have already changed the wording, so the questions of Marrakech are in fact moot now. The Banner talk 20:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marrakech: Actually I do not see in which way your answer solves the question I raised below. For that, I think you'll need to find more relevant sources on this particular subject. The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple actually. Regardless whether the star is awarded only once (and is subsequently retained by the restaurant) or repeatedly in each successive year, you can't go wrong with 'X held a Michelin star from YYYY to YYYY', because it would be accurate in both cases. Marrakech (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think most common readers will be more inclined to interpret the restaurant held a Michelin star from X until X as the case which I named below "option 2", while it might actually be option 1. So in my opinion, it would be less accurate in case the star is actually awarded each individual year again (for which, of course, conclusive proof must be found first). The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

My (Dutch) Michelin Guide mentions on page 7 Binnen de selectie onderscheiden wij jaarlijks de beste restaurants met {{michelinster|1}} tot {{michelinster|3}}. (English: Within the selection, we distinguish each year the best restaurants with to .) Note the phrase "jaarlijks" (Eng.: each year). The Banner talk 21:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd use "is a former restaurant" only for an entity that got out of the restaurant business but still exists. (How often does that happen?) Arnold Schwarzenegger is a former actor; Vic Morrow isn't. —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the key question here is still a slightly different one. More clarification should be given on this rather important question: is a Michelin star actually awarded each individual year again to a restaurant (as for example this formulation suggests (let's say this is option 1), or does the restaurant get such a star awarded only once after which it keeps the star constantly until it loses its star in some subsequent year (let's say this is option 2)?

For the sake of completeness, I'd like to mention here as well the fact that the same issue has been going on during the last days on the Dutch Wikipedia, where Marrakech has replaced in some dozens of articles the formulation The restaurant got it awarded each year... (so this is option 1) with something like The restaurant had it from... (so this is option 2). The Banner put the old phrasing (so option 1) back at first, after which he was again reverted by Marrakech. In addition, this is the same kind of revert, now today on this wiki. It's furthermore very important to include in this the fact that The Banner was blocked yesterday on the Dutch wiki for being involved in an edit war, while Marrakech was not (see here). The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Factual background: each year's Michelin guide will rate each of the restaurants it includes, some of which may have no stars, some 1, some 2 and some 3. Apart from the stars, which measures how special the restaurant is, the guide will also rate restaurants for whether they are comfortable/good quality (with a knife and fork symbol) or good value ("Bib Gourmand", denoted with the face of Bibendum, the Michelin Man). Michelin reviews its ratings regularly, and restaurants' star ratings are liable to increas as well as decrease each year, and most eventually drop to no stars, because stars denote "extraordinary" restaurants, and restaurants have a tendency to stop being special over time.

I think it's accurate to say a restaurant was "awarded" a star (or its second or third star) only in the year in which its rating changed. If it had two stars in 2016 and still has two stars in 2017, it's more accurate to say it "maintained" its two stars in 2017. If it was rated the same number of stars over a number of years, I think "held x stars in 200x-y" is both accurate and succinct. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny to see mention of the Michelin Man when this morning I got a spam in Spanish urging me to get rid of my michelines and hone my abs. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussions about how to edit Wikipedia really don't belong here; WT:MOS is a more appropriate venue. That said, I agree with Marrakech on the problems with both expressions, and his solutions to both (including by PalaceGuard008's reasoning with regard to the latter). However "held [some] stars" is awkward and potentially confusion for anyone unfamiliar with what a Michelin star is, which is a large number of people. I would suggest "held a one-star Michelin rating from [date] to [date]".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's commonplace to see in company advertising statements of the nature X company has been awarded the Y prize three years running. There are various clues you can look at before formulating your description. One clue would be the title of the award, e.g. "best [category] of ... ", followed by a year. 92.8.217.19 (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, everybody. Meanwhile 'Peacock Alley is a former restaurant' was changed to 'Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant', while 'It was a fine dining restaurant that was awarded one Michelin star in the period 1998-2002' was substituted by 'It was a fine dining restaurant that was awarded one Michelin star for each year in the period 1998-2002' (see the article). Personally I find 'X is a defunct restaurant' rather odd-sounding, but I am no native English speaker, so I could be all wrong. Also, 'that was awarded one Michelin star for each year in the period 1998-2002' is a bit wordy to my taste and could be taken to mean that the stars are actually accumulated by the restaurant. Therefore, I would prefer the simple 'Peacock Alley was a restaurant' and 'held a one-star Michelin rating from 1998 to 2002' (as suggested by user SMcCandlish).

So the question would be: is the article good enough as it is in its present state or should it still be slightly amended? Marrakech (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

So, it is just a matter of your taste? As stated before, the stars are awarded every year. The idea that the stars accumulated is a rather special reading of the text. Especially when the maximum rating is only three. The Banner talk 23:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: did you read the discussion above about how the ratings work? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the articles about Michelin restaurants in Ireland and the Netherlands myself, so yes, I know how the system works. The Banner talk 15:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware about the discrepancy between the truth (stars again awarded) and the public perception (kept the stars). I will not start singing and dancing when you state "restaurant PPP maintained the stars for the period ..." but I can live with that. It is far better than "restaurant PPP had the stars for the period ...", what in my opinion signals just to events: the awarding of the star and the loss of the star. The Banner talk 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the stars are "awarded" each year. As someone familiar with the system, no doubt you know that Michelin stars isn't some sort of annual award ceremony, it is a system of ratings in a guidebook, conceptually no different to Lonely Planet stars or TripAdvisor scores. As someone familiar with the system you will also no doubt know that Michelin's standard cycle of ratings review is about 18 months (though sometimes more frequently), so it's odd to think of the stars as being "awarded" every 12 months. So the "truth" and the "public perception" you refer to is I think in fact reversed. The truth is that the stars are "kept" once gained until they are lost, and not re-"awarded" each year. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

At least in Holland there is a yearly event to announce the new ratings. The Banner talk 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In Holland ([6], [7]), France ([8]) and Belgium/Luxembourg ([9]). Sorry, all links are in Dutch. The Banner talk 00:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes in the UK as well, Michelin holds an event where they announce the ratings in that year's guide. But does that make it a yearly "award"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

General consensus appears to be to write 'Peacock Alley was a restaurant' and 'Peacock Alley held a one-star Michelin rating from 1998 to 2002'. Would it be okay to change the article accordingly? Marrakech (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I read something differently. The Banner talk 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

End restored section

Archiving is not the same as a conclusion, Marrakech. Could you have the decency to wait for that conclusion? The Banner talk 07:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the phrase "defunct restaurant" that you clearly despise is derived from "Category:Defunct restaurants in Ireland". The Banner talk 08:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, that's not how I see it. While the discussion that I started was still underway and a compromise seemed to be reached, you all of a sudden changed both phrases in question in a way that deviated from the compromise. And on top of that you declared the discussion moot. The truth is that you haven't been able to gain much support for your point of view. So if nothing happens until the discussion is archived again, I feel I am entitled to restore my most recent edit. Marrakech (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the same as completely ignoring the discussion here and the improvements made based on this discussion. The Banner talk 13:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

One question: has anyone backed up your 'defunct restaurant' solution? Why didn't you restore the perfectly simple 'X was a restaurant', that everybody seemed to agree about? The whole point of a discussion is to reach a consensual solution, a process which feels useless when the solution is ignored. Marrakech (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the name of the category used for this article. The Banner talk 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Marrakech regardless of the "ideal" wording to describe a defunct place of business, which is really not that important, your persistence at following The Banner from article to article (he says dozens of articles) and across languages seems problematic. You've been asked above to stop the harassment and yet you continue the debate. You've crossed WP:HOUNDING and need to find another editing interest now. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, you are all wrong and you really should do your homework before entering a debate. I have only changed one (one!) article written by The Banner, which can hardly be called 'harassment', and have conducted myself politely in the discussion that ensued. You really should be much more careful before accusing anyone of misconduct. Marrakech (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"is a defunct restaurant..." – a very clumsy construction for the first line of the Lead. Forces the reader to first believe that it is something and still operates, then negates it with "defunct". Make up your mind. Either it is still something or it was. Use the simple "was a restaurant". For the second paragraph, my suggestion: "It was a fine dining restaurant that was awarded a Michelin star in 1998 and retained that rating until it closed in 2002." Akld guy (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think people read an article word for word instead of sentence by sentence?

Beside that: the category of the article read already "Defunct restaurants in Ireland". Are you suggesting that that category also needs a name change? The Banner talk 09:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the wording about the Michelin star according to your suggestion. The Banner talk 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am concerned that your comprehension of English is not to the level of a native speaker, which is what I am. You indicated earlier that you are active on the Dutch Wikipedia. You also used the curious phrasing in this rejoinder: "What is the same as completely ignoring the discussion here and the improvements made based on this discussion.", instead of saying "Which is the same...", as a native speaker would. It appears that you are not a native speaker of English. If I'm right, you have no business insisting on a particular phrasing in the restaurant article when there are speakers whose first language is English who are trying to correct you and make the sentences read properly. It's a concern that you have just retaliated against me by asking, "Do you really think people read an article word for word instead of sentence by sentence?" This indicates to me that you are piecing together sentence constructions from thought processes in another language (Dutch?) and are not familiar with the flow of English sentences, as I and other native speakers are. The "Defunct" category has no relevance in the wording of the article. It's perfectly acceptable to place the restaurant in the defunct category and still say that it was a restaurant. Is there something about this that you do not understand? What is the sticking point? Akld guy (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha, the moral superiority of the native speaker, dismissing a guy living in Ireland for the last eleven years. So, what is your point? The Banner talk 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My point is, why do you find "was" incompatible with "defunct"? Why insist on defunct being present in the first sentence of the Lead, simply because the restaurant falls into the defunct category? Have you misunderstood what defunct means? Akld guy (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, changing 'X is a former restaurant' in 'X was a restaurant' was one of the two minor edits reverted by The Banner, which led to this discussion. I still don't understand why he reverted the simple 'X was a restaurant', especially since he himself has used the identical phrase in numerous other restaurant articles he wrote, like De Vergulde Wagen. Marrakech (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep hammering on this, as you earlier stated that it was just a matter of taste. You have no other arguments than that you do not like it. The Banner talk 22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not true, The Banner. And like Akid guy I wonder why you keep rejecting the perfectly simple and natural wording 'X was a restaurant', which everybody prefers and which you yourself have used numerous times. Marrakech (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, I am not a kid and my name AKLD is one of the abbreviations for the remote forlorn ridiculed outpost Auckland where I live. Akld guy (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol, sorry... Marrakech (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And why do you keep hammering on a change of a phrase that is correct but not according to your taste? The Banner talk 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See the arguments put forward by Akld guy. Short version: as a non-native speaker of English you would do well to listen to users whose first language is English and who are trying to correct you and make the sentences read properly. Marrakech (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: The Banner, you have made no attempt, despite making several posts here, to justify why the first sentence in the article should say "defunct", so I have rephrased the entire sentence, as well as the start of the next, in this edit. Akld guy (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I did try to justify the use of defunct, pointing at the category used for the article. But also to point out that the company running the restaurant is out of business, while the actual location might still be there. "was a restaurant" signals to me that there is no restaurant at all, not as location, not as company. The Banner talk 13:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Absurd, and simply reinforces the fact that your English is not adequate. Please stay away from en.wp and go practice your English somewhere else, such as a chat program. Akld guy (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha, you are playing the "my English is superior card" again. The Banner talk 15:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Conform your failed block attempt and the information presented there, including a section about your complete misunderstanding understanding of the meaning of the word "defunct", I politely suggest that you restore the phrase "is a defunct restaurant" and stop editwarring. The Banner talk 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to restore the 'is a defunct restaurant' wording, as nobody else but you prefers it to the simple 'was a restaurant'. Besides, compare the following sentences:

The Crystal Palace was a cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park

The Crystal Palace is a defunct cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park

Which of the two sounds more natural and more logical? Marrakech (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you dislike the phrasing as a matter of taste but that discussion clearly stated that the phrase was correct and could be used. The Banner talk 10:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an incredibly boring exchange over a phrasing that is obvious to native English speakers. We would never decribe a restaurant that has closed as "defunct". My Chambers dictionary defines the word as "having finished the course of life, dead". In my experience, restaurants don't die - parrots do. Correct English phrasing is "was a restaurant". I can cite my Grade 1 English language O level of circa 1970 as evidence. Phil Holmes (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, consensus was reached on 'was a restaurant', a phrasing which so far nobody has objected to. Consensus was not reached on 'is a defunct restaurant', which so far several users have objected to. That in itself should be reason enough to keep the 'was a restaurant' wording. Marrakech (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

End copy from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

You are brilliant as ever. No, there was NO consensus about "was a restaurant" as by that time that discussion was already moot. And yes, at the AN/I page is clearly shown that "defunct restaurant" is completely correct. So there is no need to correct something what is already correct. The Banner talk 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you declared the discussion moot, which is something else. By your own logic ("why change something which isn't incorrect?") you had no business changing the accurate and broadly supported 'was a restaurant' phrasing first back to the inaccurate 'is a former restaurant' and then to the widely contested 'is a defunct restaurant'. Case closed. Marrakech (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It was your own statement that it was a matter of taste. "Defunct restaurant" is not incorrect as User:Beyond My Ken proved in the (now copied) AN/I discussion. The Banner talk 19:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

From the other side of the pond, “is a defunct restaurant” may be semantically correct, but simply reads and sounds wrong (in both American and Canadian English). “Was a restaurant” is the correct wording. Useddenim (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

Users Bazza 7, SmcCandish, Akld guy, Phil Holmes and Useddenim object to the wording "Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant".

Nobody objects to the wording "Peacock Alley was a restaurant", with the sole exception of The Banner, who calls it 'incorrect'.

That alone should suffice to keep the "was a restaurant" solution. Marrakech (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You are inventing things again, Marrakech. I have stated that you are correcting things that are not incorrect. And the original discussion was about "former restaurant", where some of the people mention above replied to. The Banner talk 10:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you explicitly called the 'was a restaurant' wording incorrect. In this edit you accused me of 'correcting something into what was incorrect' (italics mine). As that very edit amounted to changing your original wording into 'Peackock Alley was a restaurant', the question is what else your 'incorrect' could possibly refer to. Marrakech (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on phrasing of article lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's snowing.Consensus is for Option B.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

---

RfC question: Which phrasing is preferable in the lead of an article about a restaurant that has ceased to exist? Marrakech (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Option A – "X is a defunct restaurant in location Y"

Option B – "X was a restaurant in location Y"

Note: This request for comment follows on from a request for resolution of a dispute between user The Banner and myself, which can be a helpful read for a quick understanding of the question at hand. Previous discussions on the subject (and related matters) can be found higher up on this talk page.

Statement: My issue with Option A is that it simply doesn't sound right, primarily because past and present seem to be at odds with each other. The article about The Oriel, which begins with the sentence "The Oriel is a defunct restaurant in Gilford, County Down, Northern Ireland", may serve as an example. The present tense "is" followed by a specific location seems to suggest that the restaurant as such is still there somehow in Gilford, albeit in a defunct state, while in reality it has disappeared altogether. That is why I prefer Option B (in this case "The Oriel was a restaurant in Gilford"), which apart from being straightforward and unambiguous sounds much more natural to me. Marrakech (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement:: The nice part with Option A is that it is a correct option. A restaurant, as a company, can become defunct due to bankruptcy, retirement, sale, end of the lease etc. etc. It does not necessarily mean the end of the restaurant as a location. Option B signals the end a restaurant as a location/building. Option B will be correct for a restaurant like Thermidor (restaurant), where both company and building are gone. But not for Peacock Alley, that was replaced by Thornton's Restaurant. The Banner talk 19:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate your support for Option A or Option B with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to #Discussion.

• B generally; but A if the building remains known as a landmark under the name it had when it was a restaurant. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• B obviously, for the particular case under discussion. We do not need to decide at this time whether there would ever be a case where the phrase "... is a defunct restaurant" would make sense, and that question is in any case beyond the scope of an RFC at an obscure article. There is simply no question that this particular restaurant, which once existed but no longer does, is described in English using the past tense. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• B It is poor syntax to use "is" (present tense) with "defunct" which means "no longer exists." Damotclese (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But the present situation IS that the restaurant (as a company) no longer exists. The Banner talk 19:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• B - as it is more concise and grammatically makes more sense. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• B - if we say it "is a defunct restaurant", we mean that the premises are still set up as a restaurant; it is not currently functioning, but is expected to reopen. There has been no evidence produced by anyone that that is the case; it ceased to operate so long ago (2002) that there is virtually no likelihood that it will reopen. Evidence to the contrary? None provided. We cannot say that it was a defunct restaurant; therefore the only option is to say that it was a restaurant. Akld guy (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• B is appropriate if the restaurant was notable in the past (while operating), in line with styling for other topics. This should cover the vast majority of cases. (Option A would be appropriate in rare cases where a defunct restaurant is presently notable as such.) Layzner (Talk) 05:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neither (invited randomly by a bot). Try "X was a restaurant at location Y from 20MM to 20NN, when it went out of business." Jojalozzo (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• B because it makes more sense. –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Β per arguments presented above. -The Gnome (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• B - summoned by bot. I like the simplicity of B, but grammar aside, the tone is better. Defunct sounds negative. I like the idea of saying "X was a restaurant. It operated from xx until yy, when it closed because of ???. The location then became XXX restaurant", etc. In that vein, I added info about Thornton's to the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Debate goes here.

• Marrakech should have stated that there was already an attempt to discuss the matter on Dispute Resolution, where he by and large proved that it is just a matter of taste of him. He did not get what he wanted, so here is the RfC. Prior to that there was a discussion on Reference Desk/Language where he did not get what he wanted. Prior to that there was a discussion on this talk page and a few others (now copied to this talk page), where he did not get what he wanted. The Banner talk 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While I disagree (I feel I did "get what I wanted", but still saw my edits reverted), I think we should focus on this request for comments now. Marrakech (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That is not true. The Banner talk 19:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Having spent too much time reviewing this, it is clear to me that The Banner is the only one who supports the "defunct" wording, and has no good arguments for it whatsoever. It is true that Marrakech was cautioned for raising the issue in another forum at a time when the RFC was in progress (was it? I'd have to check) but that is a procedural matter — on the substance, it is clear that Marrakech is basically completely right and The Banner is basically completely wrong, and moreover, pretty much everyone else who has commented on the substance agrees with that. --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
        • • (Trovatore, not very important but just for the sake of accuracy: I haven't been cautioned by anyone for raising the issue in another forum at a time when the RFC was already in progress, because I didn't do such a thing.) Marrakech (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
            • I have only mentioned the case of forum shopping. But I did warn him about following me around. The Banner talk 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Copied from Dispute resolution:

   Not necessarily. In the case of Peacock Alley the location is part of a hotel. They forced Peacock Alley to close down (long story, court cases etc.) After Conrad Gallagher was gone, they brought in Kevin Thorthon with his Thornton's Restaurant. Effectively, it was only the company that disappeared. The building is still there. In contrast, you have Thermidor (restaurant). After reviewing the article I have changed that article to "was a restaurant" as both company and building are gone. The Banner talk 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
       That make sense to me now. If Marrakech agrees, we can consider this case closed. KDS4444 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • The Banner talk 08:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
          • • Ah, so you found one person I missed. Congratulations. The argument is nevertheless invalid, as the restaurant is not the building, and the restaurant no longer exists, even if its former location is still being used as a restaurant. Overwhelming consensus is against you, and you should let it go. --Trovatore (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• The wording at this very moment is "Peacock Alley was a restaurant..." and that's exactly how it should read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Second User:Baseball Bugs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

On the RfC page it says "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be" (see here). Since this request for comment started two weeks ago, Option B has gained overwhelming support. In view of this clear consensus I will therefore remove the rfc template if no one objects. Marrakech (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Objection The usual term for an RfC is one month, with the closing comments/conclusions done by an uninvolved editor (I think even an admin). The Banner talk 10:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not obligatory, especially not in cases like this one (as per the Snowball clause), where there can be no doubt about the consensus reached. Marrakech (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And with all due respect, but from your behaviour I get the feeling that you are deliberately stonewalling. Yesterday evening I announced that I was planning to remove the rfc template if no one would object. Since no one replied, I removed the template today at 10:23 hours, only to see you object to my action at 10:24 hours. Marrakech (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Marrakech - It isn't clear to me why you asked me to look at this dispute. However, User:The Banner is absolutely right that the RFC is normally allowed to run for one month, and you have not provided a good reason to speedy-close the RFC. You are not an uninvolved party, and you should not be invoking the snowball clause. If you request formal closure, the closer, whether a non-admin experienced editor or an admin, is likely to re-open the RFC. At this point, both of you are continuing to be combative. This isn't one of those articles that is worth being combative about. Let the RFC run. Do you really want me or another third party to have to take this to WP:ANI, where nobody wins? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so if I understand correctly I have to reinstate the rfc template and let the RfC runt its total course? Marrakech (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, do you want to establish consensus to prevent edits against consensus? If so, a proper 30-day RFC is the usual way. By removing the RFC template, you just went back to the status quo of no consensus. Do whatever you want, but if you mess with things, expect things to be messed with. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course there still is a consensus; denying that would be incredibly bureaucratic. After all, I didn't rig the RfC in any way nor did i try to canvass voters. I only made an honest mistake thinking that the RfC could be ended in view of the overwhelming consensus already reached. But people can still freely add their votes to the ones already cast. Marrakech (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There are 1400 more articles with the phrase "is a defunct" but you still seem only interested in my articles. The phrase "is a former", also not to your liking, is used in nearly 99.000 articles. Still you are only running after my articles. The Banner talk 09:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, it obviously all depends on the context those words are used in. You use them in a very peculiar way that apart from sounding quite odd doesn't convey the intended meaning, as a variety of users have already tried to explain. Marrakech (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand that the current status of a company or business can be "defunct". And you keep hammering that it "sounds odd" and other personal opinions while the text is in fact correct. Strange enough you are showing the same behaviour at the Dutch WP, even bringing me to the ArbCom in an attempt to silence me. But the ArbCom refused to hear your case... So stop banging around, here and there. The Banner talk 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

While that is definitely not true, let's focus on this Wikipedia and in particular this issue, okay? No need to drag any discords from other Wikipedias into this discussion. Marrakech (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Then why do you suddenly started editing my articles on ENWP while you have hardly any prior record of editing here? The Banner talk 20:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have been active here before, under another user name. But again, that is not the subject of this request for comment. Marrakech (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes a bit of background is useful for other readers. The Banner talk 22:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Marrakech, User:The Banner - Both of you!! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.