Talk:Restaurant Karel 5

Seven citations

Why does anything on the entire website need seven citations?? I reduced it to four in good faith and even that was still more than was really needed. Besides, why would you need Nederland 2007 and Nederland 2009 to back it up, just the latest one will do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree: seven for such a simple paragraph is ridicous: if it really is needed (which I doubt), cite bundling is the way to go, but I think the last tweak and breakdown is a superior version. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner: Were you referencing it for every year it was a starred restaurant or something? Not sure that's needed but there might be some light in it. If so then put all seven in a cluster ref to avoid the excessive numbers appearing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The references are available, what is wrong in using them? beside that, it are seven different sources. The Banner talk 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And please, read the sources. Don't remove them due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

References are available to say man landed on the moon. Need I add every single source which exists saying man did so? Don't be foolish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: and @Dr. Blofeld:: you are including factual errors. If you read the article properly, you can see that I mentioned ALL head chefs that were awarded a Michelin star. To say that it includes the two suggests that there are more. That is factual incorrect. The Banner talk 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess @SchroCat: is not interested in discussing the factual errors he re-introduced, seeing his enthusiasm to removed the warnings and comments about that. The Banner talk 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not at the moment: I'm sitting in a restaurant in Crete with my family, still pissed off with your string of four messages on my talk page (going into grounds of harassment), including calling me "a henchman", and an accusation of tag teaming. There is no rush to discuss things with such uncivil editors, and I will discuss when you apologise. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:HJ Mitchell would like to comment on this revert and tell me who is acting in bad faith here and that a simple copyedit is being wrongly portrayed as "introducing factual errors". As far as I can see Banner you've already violated two of the clauses of your permission to continue editing here, edit warring and failing to assume good faith in the edits of others and falsely stating in edit summaries that slight rewording done in good faith is "introducing factual errors". Genuinely I was acting in good faith here and was browsing new pages, not picking on you, and I thought you'd appreciate my copyediting and adding of categories. If you can't tolerate others editing your work (in good faith) don't edit here Banner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The original sentence was "Head chefs in the time of the Michelin stars were Jerry Bastiaan (2005-2007) and Jeroen Robberegt (2007-2013)". As you can see, those two head chefs cover the whole period of the Michelin stars. Your sentence "Head chefs at the time when it was a Michelin starred restaurant included Jerry Bastiaan (2005-2007) and Jeroen Robberegt (2007-2013)." suggests that there were more head chefs in the star period, but that not all were mentioned. That suggestion is just not true. The reason why you remove some absolutely valid sources is a mystery to my. Until now, you have not given a valid reason for that.

And as you can see, after the initial revert I restored a few of your edits that were correct and useful. But that was not enough for you and you blindly reverted me to get it your way. The Banner talk 19:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you blind revert it in the first place? You saw my name and immediately assumed it was negative. I bet you didn't even look at what I did at the article but saw I'd remove some sources and just assumed the worst. I reverted you because you restored poorly worded phrases and incorrect wording like "de" which you'd restored. You do not need seven different sources to support claiming a restaurant was a Michelin starred one. It looks excessive and unsightly seeing that number of citations at the end of a paragraph and any reviewer at GA or FA (like User:Tim riley who had even complained at times of even two or three) will say the same thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Talking about bad faith...

And no, I did not source the fact that the restaurant was Michelin starred with seven references. I have referenced the period that they were Michelin starred with seven references. The Banner talk 19:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a restaurant has a Michelin Star in 2005 and in 2008 and in 2010 and in 2013 you don't need to source every single year it held it. Just one for 2005 and one for 2013 will suffice or throw in one from 2009 or 2010 or something. The reader will take your word for it that it maintained its star for that duration.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should you not cover the full period when you have sources available for that? After your edits only the period 2005-2011 is covered. What I covered with my sources was the full period 2005-2013 and a source specific about the loss of the star for 2014. The Banner talk 20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be like referencing every year that Alex Ferguson was manager of Man United in his article simply because sources exist for every year. Would it really be necessary? Probably not. Seven numbers inline just stood out as an eyesore. If it had been four even five I'd probably not have touched it even if it was still too many.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it is just a case that you don't like it? The Banner talk 08:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not that I don't like it, I like your new article (although I think it would probably be best put in a sub section of the hotel article, but I'm not going to start plastering merge tags or bothering you about it). I just think 7 citations is excessive and puts the reader off the text that's all. I'd feel the same in any other and often have to remove excessive citations from articles. Citations are there to verify the information, you don't need to verify something 7 times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the article about the hotel itself would come quickly. Their restaurant is notable, the location (Duitse Huis) is notable but the hotel itself not. Even the Dutch WP has no article about the hotel. The Banner talk 09:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you, but you seem to contradict this by mostly writing about the history of the building rather than the restaurant. The building history has little relevance in the restaurant article but it would in the hotel/building article. You'd expect to see more about the cuisine and running of the restaurant rather than that. Tell me though, why do you need five sources when this source covers it all? If some of the sources are useful links then I'd probably put them in external links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. The Banner talk 11:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What part about "With a combined weekly circulation of 7.2 million newspapers and a range of 5.4 million consumers and 4.3 million mailboxes" would not make it a credible and notable source? It seems to have a fair few hits and be a reliable source, relying much on Reuters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. I invite you the write an article about the building. With that article in place, the history section can be scrapped and replaced by a single sentence The restaurant and hotel are located in a centuries old building, named "Duitse Huis". The Banner talk 11:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The building itself is a Rijksmonument which would seemingly make it notable. The information you gave is good, but might be better presented in an article on the hotel/building itself and your restaurant article linked as a sub article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think seven citations are very much over the top. It's obvious to me that the only person here who doesnt like it is The Banner. Cassianto^talk 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not reading the article, where I already have reduced the number of citations to back up the period to five. The Banner talk 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It says more than three should be avoided as clutter...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And now are you contradicting yourself, because earlier on you reduced it to four. The Banner talk 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What part didn't you read about "I reduced it to four in good faith and even that was still more than was really needed ". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Good faith or not, you removed valid, useful references. Using an essay like WP:CITECLUTTER as excuse does not change that. The Banner talk 13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not useful, so don't push POV around unnecessarily. IMO, the only thing that needs to be reduced is your time within this thread. There are millions of unfinished articles out there Banner, go do some good elsewhere. Cassianto^talk 15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't help to notice that you did nothing on the article itself. The Banner talk 08:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that was a nice little edit war. There's five citations now for the one statement--I also think that's too many. No, four: one was a duplicate. Banner, can you trim one more to make the good folks happy? Thanks. And let's not ruin each other's dinners: my boy just vomited his Chick-Fil-A all over the upstairs, and that's bad enough. SchroCat, enjoy your Crete. Stay away from odd-looking bulls, and don't have sex with them. It always ends badly. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What I have referenced was the period that they had the Michelin star, not the fact that they had one. One more out, and you don't cover the whole period. Or you leave out that they have lost the star for 2014. The Banner talk 19:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least mention what sort of cuisine they serve?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Scrollable reference list

Hmmm, there should be a possibility to make the references list scrollable and reduce the size of the text to 85%. But I can't find how. Anyone an idea? The Banner talk 09:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More bloody Banner edit warring

Banner, why have you gone straight into edit war mode, rather than discussing? To try and justify your action with "to give SchroCat his context without an edit war" is mystifying. @CambridgeBayWeather: unlocked the page to stop the pointless warring, but it seems like you just can't stop yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

My dear SchroCat. Your friend Dr. Blofeld removed the historical information after he had written the article Duitse Huis. Aymatth2 gave with his edit undue weight to the hotel/building, so I put the focus back on the hotel. And suddenly mr. SchroCat was there to start another edit war. Yes, I have reverted again but I have also added the historical information that you want so dearly that you wanted to risk an edit war over it. Did you already forget that you got block for an edit war just a day ago? The Banner talk 19:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That has to be one of the most patronising, self-serving and obnoxious messages that I've ever received on Wikipedia. Thank you for lowering my expectations of other editors even further. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about yourself, I guess? Or do you really think this is friendly, polite and helpful? The Banner talk 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)