Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] Danish version "Med kniven for struben"
There's also a Danish version of this show which closely follows the format of the original. See TV3.dk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.159.156 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Restaurant Websites
Some of the restaurants listed have their own websites. Should links be added to these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjb007 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 philips.com in the Philips article is not blatant advertising either. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- A link to philips.com 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)
- 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)
- 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 philips.com in the Philips article is not blatant advertising either. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 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)
[edit] 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. 68.102.180.134 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 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)
- 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)
[edit] Second one gone ... on live tonight (6-XI-07) but not lasted
http://www.piccolo-teatro.fr/ "A Real Vegetarian Restaurant! CLOSED... and for sale"
Mnd you they looked like a bunch of goons ... 86.143.182.5 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
