Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares

Template:British TV shows project

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. 84.42.178.112 (talk) 07:33, 23 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 [1]
• Piccolo Teatro/D-Place: Closed per the broadcast of their episodes.
• Jacksons: Closed per [2]
• Momma Cherri's Soul Food Shack/Big House: Administrative hold per [3]. There's even a BBC article per [4]
• The Granary: Burned in an arson per [5]
• Oscar's: Sold per [6]
• Love's Fish Restaurant: Closed per [7]
• La Parra de Burriana: Open under new owners per [8]. The closure notice comes from the same site per [9]

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)

bbb

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.--74.237.54.62 (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)