Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Link to Website containing status of all shown restaurants?

On the website they keep an up-to-date status of all restaurants shown in kitchen nightmares, would it be appropriate to show a link under 'unofficial websites' or 'fansites'? The website is heavily referenced and researched, almost wiki style.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Danish version "Med kniven for struben"

There's also a Danish version of this show which closely follows the format of the original. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Restaurant Websites

Some of the restaurants listed have their own websites. Should links be added to these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjb007 (talkcontribs)

The article should not be including advertising links, per WP:NOT. --Madchester 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, I think it'd be interesting for readers to be able to check-in with them as time goes by. I think they are a central part of the series and so have a reason to be included. Rx StrangeLove 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The show's official website already contains information about Ramsay revisiting the establishments weeks or months later. Any further information not shown of the program can be found via other means. Otherwise, providing links to the restaurants is a violation of WP:SPAM or WP:NOT. --Madchester 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It really doesn't fall under WP:SPAM, if you look at links to avoid [1] it really doesn't fall under any of the bullet points. But you seem pretty set on keeping them out and I don't really care, so it can be left alone. Rx StrangeLove 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:EL - "Links normally to avoid", we shouldn't be including links to the actual restaurants. The sites themselves are not directly related to the article (Point 14) and are simply being used as advertising (Point 5). Certain areas of the sites (for example, a subpage on Ramsay's visit) can be cited for supporting information on the program, but otherwise a direct link to these websites violate WP:EL. --Madchester 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It does look you are the only one objecting to it. Besides, WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. It says links normally to be avoided, it does not state, do not ever enter those links in articles. In this case the links fall under point 3 and 4 of the "what should be linked" section in WP:EL. They add to the article. Garion96 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If there were episode summaries, then sections of the restaurant websites relating to the Ramsay visits can be used as in-line citations/references. Otherwise, direct links to the restaurants are just blatant advertising and violates both WP:EL and WP:SPAM.
About Points 3 and 4 of "what should be linked"; external links should be directly related to the article topic (i.e., Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) and not the individual restaurants featured. For example, Point 4 permits links to other meaningful content, like reviews. However, these should be reviews of the show not content featured on the show, like individual restaurants or locations visited. --Madchester 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Sorry but this seems like reading too much policy and not using common sense. To have a link to the actual restaurant, which are the topic of the episode, adds to the article and is directly related to the article. Linking to the restaurants is not blatant advertising, exceptions can and should be used. A link to in the Philips article is not blatant advertising either. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A link to in the Philips article is not blatant advertising either.
Exactly. The external links in an article should only be related to the topic. In this case, websites on the television program, not its content. For example, the New York City article contains external links to the city's official website, and one for its tourism board. Not external links to say, the Statue of Liberty or American Museum of Natural History, even though they are important elements within the city. Likewise, we don't external link to each of Ramsay's restaurants in his bio article; we just include the link to his main website, with other third party sources to his biography.
If there was an article on say the Walnut Tree or Abstract (or Claridges), there would be no issue with including external links to the respective restaurant websites, as permitted under WP:EL. --Madchester 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As soon as I wrote it, I knew it wasn't the best example. Basically I don't care what WP:EL says, after all, it's only a guideline. Not WP:NPOV or WP:NFCC. I also don't think it goes against WP:EL anyway. Does adding the links add to the article? Yes. Since it seems you are only one here against it, any objections to adding the links again? Besides the fact that you are against them of course. :) Garion96 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator, I need to make sure that Wiki guidelines are followed properly.
As a compromise, the external links should only include restaurant websites that contain specific details about the RKN visit by Ramsay. Otherwise, it's still a WP:EL and WP:SPAM violation and should be removed ASAP. Remember, this is an article about the show not the individual restaurants. --Madchester 02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should ask for a second opinion on WP:EL. On this discussion it seems you at least are the only one against them. Oh, and as an administrator, I need to make sure the spirit of the wiki guidelines are followed properly. In other words, being an administrator has got nothing to do with this discussion. Garion96 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as advertising either. I wouldn't object to the inclusion of links to the restaurants featured. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Linking to the individual restaurants serves no encyclopedic purpose. And, for the person who says he doesn't care what WP:EL says because it's "only" a guideline, that's a nonsensical argument... It's a guideline instead of, say, an essay or talk page simply because it has the strong consensus of a wide range of editors. You'd have to have a pretty darn good reason to ignore a guideline, and so far the arguments don't really amount to much of anything. Besides, WP:NOT is a policy, so any excuse you might have had goes completely out the window. DreamGuy (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between a policy and a guideline. Usually for good reason. If I read WP:EL the links fall under "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". If I see an episode, I want to know how the restaurant is doing, what the menu now is etc. That often has no place in the article itself, but an external link to the restaurant could do that job very well. I see no real reference to Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a directory btw, with the possible exception to point 3 but the links are not used here in that regard. Garion96 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Tough call. It's not advertising and not a directory use, clearly. The arguments against advertising and directories simply don't apply here. It's a helpful link to aid the user in understanding the article. Unlike directories, it is a closed list based on the episodes of the show, and is not a magnet for spam, conflict of interest, underinclusiveness, or other typical directory concerns. If you watch the show and you want to follow up and get further information, the links are indeed encyclopedic. Despite all that, I would fall (weakly) on the side of not having links because they're just not all that useful. If I don't know the show and haven't heard of the restaurants before, I don't know what good it does. If this were a long text exposition with mention of five or six restaurants, sure, list those five or six. But this is a big table of data with thirty or forty. Not enough benefit to counter the complexity and clutter. But that's just a judgment call, nothing you could hang on policy. So it's really up to the editors who are seriously working on the article to decide how they like it. Incidentally, it would be okay to do an internal link to any restaurant that has an article. Wikidemo (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the "fixed" restaurant has call it quits. News or not?

Just read that La Gondola in Derby (S3E6) has closed down.

Is that news worthy of mentioning here?

--Kschang77 07:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you can verify the information by citing it to a reliable source, avoid scandalous / derogatory info about living people per WP:BLP. I think a section on "successes and failures" that follows up on these restaurants would be very useful. Wikidemo (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be news if one were not gone! To date, of those in Series 1-3 (using Channel 4's numbering; your erroneous S1-4) only four are open pretty much as we saw them: Momma Cherri's (in administration, run by her daughter), Abstract, La Parra and The Fenwick Arms. The Walnut Tree went into insolvency, and recently reopened under a new owner. Morgan's and Maggie's closed recently, and La Gondola is open minus the dining room. The others are gone, or sold and so radically changed as to be unrecognizable. I would argue this should be part of the article as its an indicator of Ramsay's overall success with the various owners, but everyone seems to liverish about advertising and what constitutes appropriate content for that. Drmargi (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be in violation of WP:OR. While it's true the restaurants have closed down, we as editors can't draw our own conclusions. If a recognized media outlet stated that Ramsay's visits have no long-term effect on a restaurant's success, then that can be included in the article. --Madchester (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus the ones shutting down are the ones that refused to follow his advice. (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I suggested editors draw any conclusions. An indicator is just that, a point on which the individual reader might draw his/her own conclusions, made available to him/her without bias. Quite a different thing. Drmargi (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Second one gone ... on live tonight (6-XI-07) but not lasted "A Real Vegetarian Restaurant! CLOSED... and for sale"

Mnd you they looked like a bunch of goons ... 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Update Status?

Bonapartes Restaurant (Season 1, Episode 1) actually had to close it's kitchen because the head chef refused to continue cleaning after Ramsey left. The bar remained open though. Should this be updated on the main page? (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Facebookery

Series 3 or Series 2 Part 2

I thought the current Series was Series 3 but I note that on the article it says Series 2 Part 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjb007 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacksons, not Jackson's

See 5:22 of this YouTube clip. Also, when the decision to rename the restaurant is made, Jackson's partner says he'll have to marry her in order to make the plural work. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Precursor

I seem to remember seeing something like this show in Japan in (I think) the 80's, but it was different in that they would pair the chef up with a specialist in the particular style of style of cuisine the restaurant served. The signature moment of the show was when the chef would be reduced to tears by the "master" (I think the logo for the show was a crying chef). I could not verify this in a few moments of googling, or even find a reference to the original show's name. But if someone remembers it, I think a reference to the earlier show would be interesting to put here. If in addition it can be established that this show was inspired by the earlier one, I think that would also be of interest to readers. Jyoshimi (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This would only warrant inclusion in the article if someone on the RKN staff gave an interview and specifically mentioned it as an influence. The usual Verifiability and Reliability standards apply. Dp76764 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Intl versions

Only the American show is a direct adaptation/franchisee of the original. I don't see the point of editors listing "similar" shows at their discretion. There's also no reliable sources linking RKN with the list of imitators, so I removed them per WP:BOLD. --Madchester (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true. At least all of the episodes of Czech version explicitly mentions RKN in the titles. (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The Czech show referencing RKN =/= it's automatically an adaptation of RKN.
If you visit the One Potato Two Potato site (Ramsay's TV production arm with Optomen Television), only Tina's Cookalong is credited as being an official adaptation of one of Ramsay's shows. While there may be other RKN-like or inspired shows worldwide - none of them are actual franchises of one of Ramsay's existing shows. --Madchester (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Quoting: "A new Kitchen Nightmares format deal has also been closed with Prima TV in Czech Republic, with RTL in Croatia also taking a new option on the series. The new Czech series, currently being produced in-house by Prima, brings the total number of home-grown versions of the Kitchen Nightmares format worldwide to 10.", see (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Compare the date of said press release (June 2009) with my original comments (Feb 2009). At the time, there were dozen of unsourced references to these international RKN-like shows in the article... as I stated clearly in my original comments. We need reliable sources such as this press release to warrant inclusion on Wiki.
  2. Note a format option =/= the show actually being produced. AXN Europe made a big deal of winning the rights to produce their own version of The Amazing Race 3-4 years ago. They set up a website, submitted press releases, etc. Ultimately, the show never filmed a minute of footage. I don't see any sources indicating that the Czech series has actually gotten beyond the pre-production stage, let alone being currently broadcast on television. Note that with Tina's Cookalong, there was a press release for the Swedish channel winning a format option and another indicating its television premiere. If broadcast details can be found, feel free to add them to the Intl. section of the article. --Madchester (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The first 12 episodes serie aired in spring, now it's airing the second serie, currently 6 episodes already aired. All aired episodes are available online at (in Czech, sorry), I hope the video is not blocked outside of Czech Republic. (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Restaurant updates

Per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, it's not really in Wiki's interest to provide running updates of a restauraunt's status. The current episode list is already satisfactory. If there are any general news articles describing the overall effect of Ramsay's visits then they can be incorporated into the Reception section. --Madchester (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are multiple articles dealing with the outcome of the show from renowned sources. The sane way of integrating this information, which is interesting and encyclopaedic, is via the restaurants' status. Xuxunette (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, this info can be integrated into the reception section. Giving a blow-by-blow account of restaurants' fortunes outside of the programme fails WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, if not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The same applies for the Kitchen Nightmares article. --Madchester (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Faulty argument. In no way does adding restaurant statuses when know falls under WP:NOT#JOURNALISM as references to primary sources are provided. It is not indiscriminate either as the information directly confers to the article in relevant way. Xuxunette (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:NOTABILITY, media coverage does not imply inclusion on Wikipedia. The restaurants themselves are not notable; only their appearance on the show is. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we don't provide a FAQ/411 on what happens to the restaurants and the personnel outside of the programme. If the restaurants met Wiki's notability guidelines, then their history before and after the show could be contained within their respective articles. There are multiple fan sites and blogs that do so, but that's outside the realm of Wikipedia's purpose.
Before making a bold change to the article; the best idea is to initiate discussion on how to properly integrate this information to the article, with proper adherence to existing Wiki policies. Cheers. --Madchester (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not the restaurants are notable is not in question. The matter to be considered is whether the statuses of said restaurant are relevant and appropriate pieces of information to the article at hand. I contend that it is. I contend that the existence of multiple primary sources on the subject support this. I also contend that it is in accord with existing Wiki policies.
Before deleting contributions, the best idea is to think it through. Cheers.Xuxunette (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - we don't report on each and every detail about the restaurants, especially those occurring outside of the programme.
Also, these details veer towards personal commentary/original research; I've mentioned this issue previously. When I see a link to a restaurant closure within the episode list, it implies that Ramsay failed to save that particular restaurant. But is that really the case? Is it not the owner's fault? The head chef? The economy? etc. That's why I recommend adding such details to the reception section. Is the show purely entertainment or does it serve a real purpose in helping restaurants? That's for reliable sources like of journalists and food writers to critique. We shouldn't be adding external links to each restaurant in order to defend or criticize the "Ramsay effect". --Madchester (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur completely with Madchester. The article is about the show, not the reastaurants' ongoing status. One of the problems that plagues the article on the US version is the fluid nature of these restaurants' status, at least some of which have opened and closed repeatedly because of tax issues. Beyond all the issues noted above by Madchester, which are sufficient in themselves to revert any updates added, the issue of keeping the status of the restaurants current, and sourced using reliable sources is tremendous. A January, 2008 source indicating Momma Cherri's closed was used to list the restaurant as closed. It never did close, but instead, was taken over by Momma's daughter, and is now doing well. There's nothing to think through. The updates add little, aren't notable, and are impossible to keep current. Drmargi (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that some of the restaurants were visited by Ramsay 4-5 years ago. We don't need running updates (i.e., news) on whether a restaurant is still open. Another 4-5 years from now, more of these restaurants will likely be closed - do we still need links about their closure, when any benefits from the Ramsay visit have probably expired? Also, why are there only negative news updates, i.e., closings but not positive ones of say awards won after being on the show? Is it not important that Abstract actually re-earned a Michelin star? And even if that positive detail is included, did Abstract re-earn that Michelin star due to Ramsay's advice? There's no reliable sources suggesting a causal link. I'm sorry, but any updates of the restaurants outside of the programme also violates POV. --Madchester (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
We're absolutely on the same page here. Updates are so amorphous, just by virtue of their fluit status, but also because we're always left with the question of what needs updating, or what constitutes an update. Far better to leave it alone. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's very useful and interesting to know what happened to the restaurants visited. I think it's important if the restaurant continues to operate, with no significant events. In the case of the Granary though, it burned down weeks after its episode aired on TV. I think that's noteworthy to at least mention. I'm watching the series from America and I was fascinated to find out which ones succeeded and failed. Like I said, I don't think every restaurant still open needs an update but if they closed or burned down, it deserves some kind of notation. JohnBWatt (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree updates regarding the restaurants should be included. For restaurants that are currently running, we should leave it as it is. But for restaurants who have closed down or their ownership has been handed over to new owners there should be at least a note stating.Roman888 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I solved our little problem by adding a small note at the top of the episode list. We had a similar issue with the tables in The Amazing Race articles, with editors updating the relationship statuses of racers (i.e., WP:NOT#NEWS), long after filming had ended. --Madchester (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We can but hope. It will either stop updates cold, or increase them because people don't read the text carefully. Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New addition of table

Another editor is attempting to add tables with updates to S1 and S2 (nothing on S3) using one source: the (tabloid) News of the World. The source is not all that new, and is inaccurate. Tabs in general are pretty unreliable. I am again requesting consensus before a change is made, and will request tables for ALL seasons before updates are added IF consensus to add updates is reached. I remain opposed - they're too hard to source accurately, too hard to keep up-to-date, and largely represent fancruft. The article is about what Ramsay does, not what happens some indeterminate time afterward.Drmargi (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the remark stating that the article is just about what Ramsay does to the restaurant. There is a good bunch of us that would like to know the updates about the restaurants that managed. What I can suggest is I install the tables and left the notation section blank until you can come up with a concensus. While there are people opposed to the updates because of the work involved with updating them, there are others that can pick up the slack and work on the articles. Roman888 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I support drmargi's removal of the updates. It's not our job to keep fans of the show abreast with the fortunes, good or bad, of the restaurants. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We have two separate issues here - the notability of the updates, and the accuracy of the source. Part of my issues is that the NOTW source is clearly not accurate. For example, it lists The Walnut Tree as closed. Except it's not. It was closed briefly by the owner who appeared on the show, then reopened and sold. It's now operating successfully under a new owner. So what are we adding? Dated information that's not accurate. Aside from checking individual restaurant websites, and even that's dicey, we have no good way to know the true state of a business, and it may change at any time. There's been a battle over this for some time in the article for the US version - one restaurant has opened and closed for tax reasons more than once - and it creates a real problem. Cost benefit analysis? These updates add too little information weighed against the problems they create. This has been discussed here over and over, and consensus has always been not to include them. Drmargi (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Drmargi and Dudesleeper. "Updating" the status of restaurants on the show is more trouble than it's worth and I find it to be susceptible to interpretation (ie: WP:OR). The NOTW article is fairly dubious, imho; they seem to be mostly making implications that every single closing was the 'fault' of the show. Now, if a serious journalist decides to do some work on this topic, I might support incorporating that kind of material (maybe in a new section). DP76764 (Talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS. I can understand running updates of the restaurants if they had their individual articles. But this an article about the show - not the content or personalities featured on the show. The featured restaurants (and restauranteurs) only derive notability via the program; there's no need for us to expand outside the scope of the program, thus also violating WP:NOR as mentioned above. --Madchester (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then axe the table on the US version. It's the same thing. They derive their notability from the show except when said restaurant or restauranteur has separate notability (Walnut Tree Inn in UK has notability on its own terms). I see no reason why we can't have a table of airdates and something simply saying "Closed April 2008 (Maggie's)" or "Burned in an arson" (Granary) like the US. Why do we need extensive articles and notices? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reintroduced the tables with an added column of the original airdates of the show. I'll leave the restaurants updates column blank until there is a concensus on whether updates on the restaurants should be introduced. Regarding that argument about this article being only about the show and not personalities, I disagree. Isn't Ramsay a personality as well? Roman888 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Which I have reverted. The point of consensus seeking is you leave things as they are until consensus is reached. Thus far, consensus remains no updates, tables, etc. Drmargi (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Again which I have reverted back to the table format. Because the discussion is in regards to updates and followups about the restaurants after the Kitchen Nightmares show has ended. There was no concensus stating that table formats shouldn't be used.Roman888 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, Roman, but MY request was for consensus on it all. Wait until we decide yes or no on the updates, get the airdates and then if we agree tables are OK, put them in WITH the airdates, rather than putting up half-finishes shells. Drmargi (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed I do not want to start any edit war with you. But you didn't even give me time to add the airdates to the original airdate column before reverting everything back. I was researching the original airdates for the episodes to be included in the tables.Roman888 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For post reasons. Let me give an argument about this:

  1. The restaurant status. The US version has notes on closures and (for Dillons) a note on renaming, although with the impending lawsuit, it may close. While there is a significant amount of UK closures, I still think it useful that there's info about closures and sales (or in the cases of Momma Cherri's and the Granary, going under administration and arson respectively) and name changes like the US page, but nothing more.
  2. Success and failure. The whole point of RKN and KN is to turn restaurant fortunes around. That is, in general, the whole premise, promise, and idea of the show. While I oppose continuous information on such information (Wikipedia is not the news), if someone creates a List of restaurants featured on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares page (which isn't likely happening), I believe that could justify running information.
  3. Personalities: The big difference between the restauranteurs and Ramsay is that Ramsay is both a) an established celebrity, and b) the "host" of the show. Hosts, by their nature, are the predominant personality. While there are some personalities that also count as somewhat celebrities (Francesco Mattiolo and Barry Larsen, for instance), they mostly became notable on the back of the show, as Madchester said. Ramsay, however, is notable for work outside the show.
  4. Revisits. Unlike the US, which did one revisit which encompassed the whole of last season's restaurants (the ones that stayed open at the time, sans Secret Garden), the UK has numerous where they run the prior episode in a shortened form, with a revisit a year later. The problem is these are irregular in schedule (Season 1's revisits were the last Season 2 episodes, but the La Parra and Fenwick Arms revisits were in the middle of Season 5, plus the Season 2 revisits were aired in Season 4).

This is my opinion on what I feel is what I'd do:

  1. Do tables with air dates for each season with notes about closures, sales, renamings, or other such things, but ONLY that (except in the case of Mick's Bistro, since it's a specific portion), akin to the US series.
  2. Place the revisits in a subsection with a table including the season they were run in so they don't clog up the previous tables. Alternatively, keep them as it is now.

That's my two cents, but I'm only stating what I think. I'm still open to other ideas. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding putting the airdates (this is a show isn't it?) and side notes. There shouldn't be any opposition in regards to putting up tables as in the past there was no concensus made in opposition to table formats. Which is why I have reverted back to the table format. I have left the notes section blank for certain restaurants, until there is a concensus regarding updates. Roman888 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you propose sourcing the 'success or failure' entries? Obviously the NOTW article is not an adequate source for such entries. DP76764 (Talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Look, if you think NOTW is not an adequate source but a tabloid journal then there are other news journals and magazines that contain information regarding the closures and updates of the restaurants. That will negate the argument about tabloid journalism. Though there is a sense of credibility within the NOTW article. I have seen articles from the Sydney Herald and Guardian regarding the closures and updates of the restaurants. It will take time to dig and find these articles.Roman888 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the same problem with struggle with on the US version. There are few if any reliable sources for current status. NOTW has already proven itself not to be (I don't know about anyone else, but I'd revert any changes sourced to them as unreliable based on The Walnut Tree alone.) Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
How can you just based the realibility argument of the NOTW on just one restaurant alone? How about the other restaurants named in that article? Didn't the NOTW reliably reported that many of them had closed down or are in receivership? Roman888 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Then let me ask you. What do you call a reliable enough source? Should I run around online and gather some closure notices for approval? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that any source that meets the guidelines for WP:RS would be reliable :P DP76764 (Talk) 21:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Then let's try a beginner's course. Here's some closure notices I found for certain restaurants. How do these work? These are just a few to allow room for WP:RS:

  • Rococo: Closed per [2]
  • Piccolo Teatro/D-Place: Closed per the broadcast of their episodes.
  • Jacksons: Closed per [3]
  • Momma Cherri's Soul Food Shack/Big House: Administrative hold per [4]. There's even a BBC article per [5]
  • The Granary: Burned in an arson per [6]
  • Oscar's: Sold per [7]
  • Love's Fish Restaurant: Closed per [8]
  • La Parra de Burriana: Open under new owners per [9]. The closure notice comes from the same site per [10]

I will concede that we can't find reliable or partway reliable articles for 100% of all restaurants in the series (Lanterna, and the Sandgate Hotel both have missing sources, but I've yet to look, but these have been shown as closed and sold respectively). Now how do those sources stack up? I know the BBC article is reliable. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's hold our horses for the moment. You don't have consensus to include any of them at the moment. Let's cross one bridge at a time. Drmargi (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What's with all this original research? For a show like The Bachelor, we don't do a "Who Did They Hook Up With Now?" section for the women who didn't make it to the final. Or for any reality show for that matter.

Are we really going to be listing every name and ownership change in the 4-5 years since some of the restaurants were featured on the show? These changes may be reliably sourced, but it just borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In an earlier comment, I also questioned the NPOV of these edits as they only focused on "negative" events like closures while excluding "positive" stories like Michelin stars won.

These follow-up edits open up a huge can of worms and go way beyond the scope of the actual program. These details belong on a fan page or blog, not Wiki. --Madchester (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to do every name, event, or owner over the years. Think of it this way: Suppose that a restaurant as visited is the restaurant with its owners. Take, for instance, Moore Place. The RKN "Moore Place" had two owners: Richard Hodgson and Nick Whitehurst. When the restaurant was sold in 06, the restaurant was renamed "Esteem". Ergo, "Moore Place", as it appeared on the show, ceased to exist as such, meaning that now that it has become a new restaurant, updates should be cut on the old restaurant. The last fate of the restaurant "Moore Place" was that it was sold in 06, not that it was almost destroyed for apartments, as that was a fate suffered by the restaurant "Esteem". Same with Bonapartes. Bonapartes, as a restaurant, is gone, and is replaced by "Reflectionz". Ergo, Bonapartes's late fate was that it was closed. Even if it was sold, the same applies. Take, for instance, Jack's on the US show. The "Jack's" on KN had three owners, but the new one has new ownership, meaning "Jack's", as it appeared on KN, has ceased to exist. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not our prerogative to decide and have only "positive" things happening posted after the episodes have ended. Negative outcomes or results will definitely come out after the show has ended. NPOV argument is negated if we can source for the updates from the restaurants from the "mainstream" media. For the updates just include news about the original owners. Why would we want to include news about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th ownership of the restaurants after the show has ended?Roman888 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting to be very rhetorical. There is no consensus to add outcomes, and at the moment, opinion is running against. Drmargi (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask what the general opinion running against is? While I agree that we definently lack a clear consensus (we seem to be a 50/50 split, best), I just wish for this opened can-of-worms to be laid straight. It's probably the best solution, as I can't tell who's in favor and who isn't. Sorry, I don't usually work on TV articles, hence my name. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no general opinion against updates of the show. But in the spirit of consensus I will only include the tables and leave the sections where the updates should be as None. I have added the original airdates of the show. (I wasn't given time to add them in my original edit of the tables)Roman888 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Please don't revert war to the point of this article being locked again.
  2. My 2 cents (and worry) about the table is that the Notes column invites users to add running updates of the restauraunts. If tables are included, my suggestion is to add hidden warnings in that column, telling editors not to add such updates per WP:NOR, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc. --Madchester (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. STOP trying to sneak the table back in under some thin pretext. Until you have consensus (and Angel, consensus isn't a vote) you leave things as they were. Period. The notes are a disingenuous attempt to sneak the updates in. Be patient - you may never have consensus for anything like notes, and are verging on edit warring. Drmargi (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying it was a vote. I'm saying that so many of the posts were vague and hard to clarify and I just wanted opinions laid bare. No vote, no poll, just what're your arguments for and against. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess its time to vote on the issue since Drmargi has stubbornly reverted several inclusions of a table. If we leave it for stating our arguments for and against the inclusion of tables, dates and updates, we might be discussing this thing until forever.Roman888 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check the standards for consensus and civility, and reflect on your own edits before throwing around words like stubborn. If it takes discussion "until forever" to gain consensus, that's what has to happen. There's clearly none here. Drmargi (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your statement on consensus and civility, I don't believe we can make a breakthrough with the discussions on the inclusion of tables, dates and updates. Sorry if you think we should keep discussing this issue forever, which is your plan. You might have all the time in the world, but people have other things to do. The only way forward is we conduct a vote on the issue. Let's settle it once and for all, unless your afraid of being overrule in this matter. I will try to message some of the Wikipedians who have contributed to this article in the past and get them to vote on this issue.Roman888 (talk) 12:08 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"unless your afraid of being overrule in this matter" Roman, please. That's the argument of an adolescent. You're trying for a power play because you haven't made your case. Stop having a Wiki-tantrum and be patient. I would urge you to check on the procedures for consensus before you start messaging around too much, but remember: a vote isn't consensus, and it won't stop future revisions or edits by other editors, mine or anyone else's. Drmargi (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Drmargi, please don't try to tell me that I am having a tantrum and that I have to be patient. Sorry I have been involved with many voting issues in Wikipedia and the vote can break a deadlock on many issues that can't be resolve through consensus. It might not be what you want, but that's life. Sure I can't change your opposition to tables, dates and updates for this article but I want to resolve this matter asap. Roman888 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
How have you been involved in voting issues? Voting isn't permitted on Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion? RfC this. I want this whole thing to just END. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is the television show about the intervention of Gordon Ramsay, about the restaurants, or both? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding in a bit of information on the restaurants after Ramsay would be a nice touch (if it's reliably sourced that it closed down shortly afterward, for example, it helps the article). Granted, the article should primarily focus on the series and ramsay's intervention, but having extra bits of sourced information can only help. As a casual fan, I know I'd be interested to see if the particularly bad restaurants reverted to their old ways and disappeared, though I know that's not the main purpose of this article. Wizardman 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wizardman's comment above. If reliably sourced I think that information makes for a better article. Garion96 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You've both answered the wrong question. To address the question at hand, the show is about Ramsay's intervention, not the restaurants. The PR materials from both Channel 4 and BBC America make that abundantly clear. Absent Ramsay, we have nothing but a bunch of failed restaurants meriting no more notice than the local newspaper's food blog. Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The show is about both. Ramsay's intervention (and the show) would be better explained when there also is info about the restaurants. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's about both, I agree. Yes, the show features and, for the most part is about, Ramsay's intervention, but it's the restaurants themselves that apply for and for the most part (excluding the Priory) accept his help, something that is occasionally mentioned in both incarnations (UK and US) of the show (Ramsay during the Rococo episode: "If I didn't think it was possible to turn it around I wouldn't be here, and you wouldn't have asked for my help". On occasion (Finn McCools and Secret Garden), the restaurant is featured for other reasons (in these cases, chefs Brian and Michel applied for Hell's Kitchen and didn't make it, but the producers liked their personality). To make the case clear: The show itself is about Ramsay's intervention, but at the same time, if it weren't for the restaurants being under threat of closure, there'd be no show. So both. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There you have it. There are 3 persons, including myself who agreed that the television show is about both the interventions and the restaurants. Its high time we include the tables once again, with the airdates and updates, just like what is being shown in the Kitchen Nightmares article. All those who have opposed these haven't shown an supporting documents that say otherwise but only revealed their personal aversions to updates. Roman888 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are about consensus, not the number of support votes in each camp. Also per WP:MOS, the most important issue is internal consistency within each Wiki article; it doesn't matter how KN is presented vs. RKN as long as each article follows basic Wiki policies to a tee.

The restaurants themselves are interchangeable. The only constant on the show is Ramsay, with his methods to save local restaurants. Again, Wiki is not news and coverage of the restaurants should not go beyond what is presented on the programme. --Madchester (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The restaurants exist only as the canvas on which Ramsay paints. I'm curious what "supporting documents" we're meant to show to say otherwise to what. What we have here is yet another attempt to get around consensus by using a vote. The burden to demonstrate the need for change is on those who want to make it, not those of us wishing to keep things as they are. You still don't have consensus, and this attempt at sidestepping it doesn't alter that point. Drmargi (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Again I beg to differ, as you yourself also don't have concensus when it comes to deleting or reverting the tables with the airdates and updates. You can point to the Wiki is not news - but there is the point which states Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. In interest, here you have people who are there are people who are interested to find out updates regarding the restaurants. In the past there have been many links places showing news articles with which state which show how some of the restaurants have closed down (which you happened to revert and deleted). There you have your verifiability. As for the supporting documents show me which rules state that where I can't put up updates of the restaurants. I can debate you point by point about the wiki rules, which are not set in stone. Sorry if you don't want the burden of updating the article, let others do it. Roman888 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"there are people who are interested to find out updates regarding the restaurants."
The updates are appropriate for articles about the respective restaurants and not the programme. If those restaurants are individually notable, then feel free to create new articles for them including details about the RKN visit and beyond. This article is about a television programme and the awards/criticism, etc it has garnered. The awards/criticism of the featured restaurants are not appropriate for this television programme article, unless said incidents were featured within the programme or during filming.
As an analogy, Susan Boyle was a featured contestant on Britain's Got Talent, similar to the feature restaurants on RKN. She, like the restaurants, gained public attention on their respective programmes. However, her personal exploits outside and after the show are detailed in her own article. Likewise, other contestants with individual notability have their post-show work discussed on their indivdiual articles, not within the BGT main or seasonal articles.
Your bolded sentence about WP:NOT#NEWS is an exception that pertains to articles, not article content. i.e., articles shoudn't contain general news items although there are special exceptions for creating articles solely about news items.
I previously brought up the notion of transwiki-ing such updates to a RKN or Ramsay-specific blog or wiki. The likes of Wookipedia and HeroesWiki were created since the scope of their coverage on Star Wars and Heroes respectively were not permissible under Wiki's content and notability policies. --Madchester (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
First to say, I called the RfC not for a vote, but for a general commentary on the direction of the page. If people put a better case for the restaurants being second to Ramsay's intervention, then no, we shouldn't do running updates, as the RfC consensus. However, I strongly agree with Madchester's Ramsay's Wiki post, as I've also considered such a thing.
At the end of the day, I have to agree with Madchester's Ramsay wiki notion and transfer most of the Wikipedia-violating content there. That's my final decision and, being a part of a different group that started a Wikia (Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones), I think this would be the best method. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not being clear about what I said about the voting. In the past I have gathered a few Wikipedians to decide on the direction certain article because of current edit warring that was being committed by a poster. After I got a few people to agree on my arguments, I made the changes. That person continued to make the edits stating he or she was right. I just then reported him for Edit warring and he got banned.
Out of respect to Hurricane, I will continue to post the arguments about the merits of having the updates for the article. In fact I had already message a few people stating that I wanted to make sure that this issue about updates is settled once and for all. I found Hurricane beat me to it and posted an RFC.
If those restaurants are individually notable, then feel free to create new articles for them including details about the RKN visit and beyond. - Now you say if the restaurants are individually notable, we can create new articles about them. In all fairness we should keep as much information in one area, as not to take up too much server space or have hundreds of stubs out there.
The awards/criticism of the featured restaurants are not appropriate for this television programme article, unless said incidents were featured within the programme or during filming.
Regarding the statement above there is little ambiguity. First there is nothing to say its not inappropriate or appropriate to have updates about the featured restaurants. As I previously pointed out there are people who are interested to know what happened to the restaurants after the show being aired.
Well at least you agreed with my point about news articles in WP:NOT#NEWS. There were several updates about the restaurants here in the past with links to news articles. Then you had that argument about the news articles being reputable or not and irregardless those updates were removed without debating or coming to a consensus about them. Roman888 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, emphasis on restaurant updates. Such details belong to respective restaurant articles if they were not shown on the television programme. We don't include "Where are they now?" sections on past game show contestants on say Jeopardy!. However, certain contestants have merited individual notability (i.e., Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, etc.) had their personal post-television exploits are featured in his own article and not any of Wiki's Jeopardy! articles. The types of updates appropriate in this article would be the show's airing status, change in airdates/premiere dates/international broadcasters, etc. --Madchester (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Roman, you would do well to review the policy regarding WP:CANVAS, something you, by your own admission, you appear to have done. Your statements call into question whether you are acting in good faith as well. I find that troubling.
Madchester, I find the Jeopardy analogy a fair one. The restaurants have no notability in and of themselves. They are simply the device much like a mechanics tools (with Ramsay as mechanic) - important, but only in terms of what the mechanic does with them. If anything, this discussion and the one above make a strong case for removing the updates from the US KN site. They've proven to be a nightmare (no pun intended) of unsourced or unreliably sourced then reverted edits and constant changes of status (one has changed hands I believe twice), all for precious little information of minimal interest. Drmargi (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
DrM, regarding your WP:CANVAS a lot of people are polite, especially myself with your constant reverts. I find it also troubling that you haven't even look at yourself when it comes to deleting the tables with the updates and airdates, and the numerous posts that you have deleted in this article. Pointing to Wikipedia:Reverting and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, you continue to have a personal aversion to constant updates with your constant reverts. Since when do the updates have minimal interest to the public? Do you represent the public or majority view there?
MadC, perhaps we can come to a middle ground of understanding and just have the airdates next to the shows listed. We can have a later discussion about the including the updates perhaps another time.Roman888 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I take it that your silence the last few days means that you agree with the inclusion of the airdates in the next to the show listings. Roman888 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I may agree with MadC on updates, but in general, putting original airdates next to the episodes isn't in violation of anything from what I know, unless someone can pull a reason as to why they should not be included here. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright then. I'll put up the tables with the airdates this time around. I hope to see another discussion come up about including the updates in the future. So far the arguments given about the updates don't jive with some of the articles in Wikipedia we are witnessing. Roman888 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, but should the revisit of Momma Cherri's make mention of the restaurant's relocating/renaming? Both were featured in the revisit. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the note for Momma Cherri's Big House. That should settle it for the meantime. Next up, waiting for a new discussion about the updates to be included.Roman888 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Updates. Round Two

imo, in addison to the air dates and the names of the resturants, we need a current stautes meter or a notes section to report what has happened snice the eds, like has been done with the american KN wiki page.-- (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion above. This has already been covered. DP76764 (Talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And the issue of updates hasn't been resolved and finalized. If you have valid references or sources that you might have found in regards to the updates of the restaurants, you can build a case for the inclusion of the updates just like the American KN. User:Roman888 (Talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think consensus has been reached in the previous section. Again, this is an article about a television programme; not restauraunts that happened to be on one or two episodes of the programme. Ramsay's the host of the show, yet we don't include his biography or post-RKN exploits in this article. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Madchester. If anything, this discussion and the one above make a case for removing the constantly problematic, unreliable and frankly irrelevant updates from the article for the US version. They aren't updates; they're just a list of closures, and who cares? Drmargi (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry I disagree with you in regards to that statement. The television program is about the restaurants and their makeovers. If not why do we have a section titled "Libel" which is about the aftermath of one of the shows in RKN? Eventually we will include the updates for the restaurants. Thank You! Roman888 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Except this is a Wiki article about a television programme - not a restaurant. The libel case pertained to a newspaper's accusations of Ramsay and production faking scenes in one particular episode of the programme. Again, feel free to trans-wiki that information to a Ramsay or RKN wiki. And with the "Eventually we will include the updates for the restaurants." bit - the article is not some battlground to prove a point. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As of today, the updates have been removed from the Kitchen Nightmares (US) page. They are impossible to source, constantly out of date and a magnet for original research, in addition to the issues discussed, endlessly, above. What happens to the restaurants ages after the episode air simply isn't notable, and really isn't the point. Thankfully, the US and UK articles are now consistent, and in a way that means they can be kept up-to-date without constant oversight. Drmargi (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has started for the reinstatement of the updates and notes section on the US version of Kitchen Nightmares. You can read about the new arguments and developments here - Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#RFC_for_inclusion_of_restaurant_updates. More posters and editors are weighing in on this issue and hopefully it will be resolved whereby the updates will be part and parcel of the tables over at the other article. Roman888 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Closures of restaurants taken place during the broadcast of the episodes

We are currently discussing the closure of restaurants that have taken place during the broadcasting of episodes, which has nothing to do with the consensus derived in past. That previous consensus was made regarding the closures of the restaurants that have not been mentioned in the broadcast of the episodes. A number of reverts and edit warring has taken place that is uncalled for by serial contributor Drmargi. Please make your comments heard here: Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Restaurant_updates.2C_next_round. (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus exists to exclude any and all restaurant updates in the articles for the US and UK shows, period. Your persistent interpretation of that consensus as somehow not including restaurants that closed during production (and there's only one between the two shows) is just that: your interpretation. There were no timelines, limitations, loopholes or exclusions to the consensus built. Therefore, the reverts made were appropriate, and the burden lies solely with you to establish new consensus. You may want to read the archived discussions carefully, and address the specific arguments made in support of excluding the updates.
I would also urge you to review WP:CIVIL. You should direct your comments to the arguments presented, not the editor, and avoid name-calling such as you've done here. Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should be the one to review WP:CIVIL as you have been posting in discussion pages and moderator's talk pages disparaging individuals such as myself and trying to get them (the moderators) to block new edits. Sorry as I said before the burden lies with you to establish new consensus on whether to include or exclude updates or closures of the restaurants that have taken place during the broadcast of the show. In the meantime I will just revert your removal of the closure of one of the restaurants until you can show proof that you have made any pass argument showing the exclusion of closures of restaurants that have taken place during the broadcast of the show. Again I repeat, don't try to dictate that all closures are excluded without showing proof in your previous discussions or consensus building as you claim. I have read the past archives and there is no proof as what you said regarding consensus regarding closures of restaurants during broadcasting of the episodes. The ball is in your court. Thank you! (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing uncivil about my discussions with others on their talk pages. Doing so is a well-established and entirely appropriate mechanism for problem-solving, particularly where disruptive editors are concerned. Your confrontational replies, on the other hand, continue to be uncivil, and thereby problematic.
There is no onus for me to show proof of consensus. I've repeatedly invited you to read the previous discussions here and on Kitchen Nightmares (including discussions in the archives) -- they firmly establish consensus. That you've failed to do so doesn't place any burden on me; I have consensus, and it's there for anyone to read. The burden remains with you to establish new consensus to include the updates. Thus far, you've yet to put forth even a cursory argument in favor of them. Moreover, you are IP hopping, a violation of WP:SOCK. Drmargi (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with IP hopping, as I mentioned in the Kitchen Nightmares discussion pages before I used wireless internet with explains the different IPs. I have read the previous discussions in Kitchen Nightmares and here and they establish consensus regarding only updates that have happened after or what is not shown during the broadcast of the episodes. I am truly sorry you have taken this confrontational attitude and refusing to show any proof in the archives that on the consensus you are talking about. You further go to different editor's talk pages and ask them to prevent more constructive edits from taking place. Isn't that confrontational and problematic enough. Instead why don't you provide the information that I have requested of you and stop with the continued reverts that you have done in the last 24hrs. (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing confrontational about my attitude, and I'm not the one calling names. I've stated repeatedly where the consensus discussion that supports my position can be read. You can persistently insist otherwise, and attempt to turn the consensus process back around on me, but the fact remains, you have no consensus to add updates, and still decline to engage in any discussion that will lead to it. Meanwhile, your IP hopping has Kitchen Nightmares semi-protected, and will no doubt result in the same here before too long. You might want to look back at the reason for the page protection; I seem to recall seeing the words repeated sockpuppetry in the edit summary.
I'm happy to engage in a constructive discussion of the need for addition of updates of any sort if, and when, you're ready to do so, and invite you to present your arguments in support of doing so. I'd be interested in seeing what they are, given there's been none thusfar. Drmargi (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Instead of making repeated accusations of sockpuppetry in different editors' discussion pages, which I repeat I am not at fault with, you should have instead discussed this matter in a civil manner. There was no reason for you to revert my edits several times before an edit took place. There was also no reason for the Kitchen Nightmares article to be semi-protected in the first place. In doing so you trying to get near-control over the article and prevent people from making constructive edits. There is no denying you are trying to tie me with someone else and semi-protect all your articles which you are currently contributing. I have made my arguments clear, regarding the inclusion of updates regarding the restaurants that have taken place during the broadcast of the episodes. We already have the renaming of the restaurants included in the 2 articles, and furthermore the closures information took place during the episodes and should be in the same bracket. You can't simply say the closures of the restaurants in this instant is the same as the one you mentioned in your previous consensus discussions. They are different irregardless of what you are saying. I have already said you should shown proof on what instant in the discussion archives that you made putting all updates or closures of the restaurants in the same boat. As I have read through the archives, there is none, despite your insistence there is. This is why I say the onus is to show what proof you are talking about. If I am at fault, I admit also reverted your removals too, but two wrongs don't make a right. (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Roman, you've never had a decent command of how consensus works, and you still don't. The decision to protect Kitchen Nightmares was an admin's, and they don't do these things lightly; when they do it, they've got a darned good reason. In this case the reason was sockpuppetry and you, and you alone, supplied it. Had you read the discussion on Garion 96's talk page, you'd see the idea to semi-protect was his, not mine, and I didn't make my first post there until after he'd already reverted you. You are IP hopping and persist in attempting to re-interpret existing consensus to fit your agenda rather that doing what WP:CONSENSUS requires and making a case for new consensus. The boys in Vegas would say you're making your point the hard way. If you're honest, you know this is about an old grudge and winning, not what's best for the article. You can attempt to spin my actions as uncivil, or whatever you care to, but it doesn't make it so. Drmargi (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) All I am saying is that you continue to be uncivil in that you are making unfounded accusations left right and centre. The articles were semi-protected because you had a hand in posting in their discussion pages and prodding them to do so. I have already mentioned I use wireless internet. I am not on trial here, but if you want I can tell you I use Telstra wireless service, which explains why I have different IPs. Every few minutes there is a change in the IP address which I have no control over with. I have said again I didn't want to start a new account, but only want to post freely and without hindrance. The semi-protection by Garion 96 was also due to your continued reverts and your continued posting in his discussion page which you fail to mention. On top of that you try to post in other people's discussion pages and make it look like I am a criminal. I am not the one reinterpreting the previous consensus as you claim. The issue is we are talking about a different matter altogether which is consensus regarding the information about the closures of the restaurants that have taken place during the broadcast of the episodes. Saying its about grudges and winning the argument makes the argument which you have put forth lacking. And you have the uncivility in calling people names and trying to tie people to others. I am not spinning anything but addressing the points which you just raised. Its time you stop all this and the burden of proof is on you to show where the previous consensus says to exclude all updates. So far you have refuse to do so while I have put out a few points already. The ball is in your court. (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Roman. Kitchen Nightmares was semi-protected because you were editing disruptively from a series of IPs rather than setting up a new account. You made the choice to IP edit, and have to live with the consequences of that choice. You claim your IP changes every few minutes (from Sydney to Brisbane to Melbourne to Adelaide?) but we have only your word for that. I use wireless too, and my IP doesn't do that. A new account doesn't prevent you from posting freely and without hinderance. On the other hand, disruptive editing and a history of sockpuppetry do, just as IP hopping gets an article semi-protected. And let's face it, your history gives us more than a little reason to question your motives.
If you had respected consensus and stopped reverting after I made my first one, which is what the process expects you do to, we'd be having a reasonable conversation about including those updates now. Instead, we're back the same tortured discussion with you avoiding the main issue by making the discussion all about the editor, just as you've always done. It's getting us nowhere. So I'm going to ask you a direct question and see if I can get a direct answer, or at least get the discussion (finally) about establishing new consensus to include the updates you want. Ready?
Why should we include the update to Piccolo Teatro and any other restaurant that closes during production? Consensus is not to include updates, period. What's so different about this restaurant and any others where closures took place during production that we should add a note indicating they were closed during production? And in the case of PJ's, how will you reliably source that they closed during production, not after? Drmargi (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right and you know it. The Kitchen Nightmares was also semi-protected because you continue to revert everyone's updates and it already bordered on edit warring which you refuse to acknowledged. Furthermore every time you don't get your way you run to some moderator's talk page and get him or her to help you with semi-protecting the page or trying to ban users. The moderators thinking its a sock-puppetry case then bow to your wishes and semi-protect the page.
You don't seem to understand the concept of wireless internet here that IP sometimes skips a few times. Once I posted something a few minutes apart in one article and there was a different IP registered. So don't you try to tell me that you about your IP because there is a difference here. I said again I don't care to register in WP, because I don't want my personal details to be captured by those Wiki Nazis.
As you said why should we include the update to Piccolo Teatro and any other restaurant that closes during production? Simple it was shown in the episode themselves and if we were to summarize the episodes that information would be included. Look at many of the TV series or movies that have been covered in Wikipedia over the years which were summarized. I know many of them are include information about the ending of the episodes or films..... and Mr Ramsay's comes back to Paris and finds Piccolo Teatro closed. And what about reliable sources? You don't get more reliable than the broadcast of the show itself. The show is the source and I know you have shot down hundreds of references over the last couple of years. Are you going to shoot down what happened during the show itself and consider it unreliable? And please don't speculate on whether they closed before, after, during production because we are here to see facts not speculation.
If you want to end this you just have to sit down and show proof that your previous consensus excludes all updates. PERIOD! Otherwise leave all the updates of restaurants alone that were covered during the broadcast of episodes. I have already read through your previous consensus in the archives and it doesn't cover updates or closures of the restaurants that happened during the broadcast of the episodes. If your so confident about your so-called consensus, show it for everyone to see. I personally don't want to see this drag on for the next couple of years. (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)