Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 25 September 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Food and drink This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Open/Closed

There should be extra info to show if these places are still active or not.--andreasegde (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check the archives for this article. You'll see this has been extensively discussed, and there are a whole list of policy issues that the addition of status creates. The article is about the show and what Gordon Ramsay did during a finite period of time, not the long-term fate of the restaurants themselves. If the restaurants are notable enough, they will have their own articles that keep track of their fate (you'll see in the discussion that another editor draws an analogy to what happens to competitors on shows like Survivor). Moreover, simply listing open or closed, assuming you can accurately verify and source the status of all the restaurants, implies Ramsay is directly and solely responsible for their fate. That's far from accurate: there are far too many other factors that contribute to whether the restaurants stay open or close, not the least of which being the economy and how well they maintain the changes Ramsay made; in the earliest discussion, which is probably in Archive 1, I researched some of the first and second series restaurants, and found closures were due to factors such as owners' lack of interest in continuing in the business, bad PR, failure to pay taxes and health department violations, for example, none of which has anything to do with Ramsay. And realistically, how long after the fact are we going to keep track of these places? At some point, we have to recognize this wanders into the realm of fancruft and let it go. --Drmargi (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I AGREE-WIKI should include success rates at the very least. I myself wouldn't let him within a mile of any business I had. Gordon's show also has a formula that might as well be scripted..he always walks away beloved before the same changes as a simpler menu and decor. Yet,I think 9 out of 10 shops he touches, closes..some before the episodes even aired. His impact is only to terrorize owners. A shame that that the premise is in fact, false. Gordon Ramsay doesn't have a real clue to turn around what he doesn't own. 1 in 10 or 2 in twenty isn't results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you, with 100% certainty, reliably source that all the restaurants that close do so because of Ramsay's intervention? No. We did the research on the first and second season restaurants during earlier discussions, and found most closed for other reasons: owners failing to pay taxes, health department closures, foreclosure, and owners who simply didn't want to stay in the restaurant business were all factors. A couple were sold, one because of the owner's health. One notable one blew out everything Ramsay did and went right back to his old ways, then closed. Including a success rate without documenting the contingencies behind the closures paints a very distorted picture, and lacks any measure of neutrality. And then there's the issue of how far into the future these updates are done, and when they cease to have any relevance whatsoever to what Ramsay did. One restaurant recently closed, three years after Ramsay's visit, because its owner committed suicide. What's that got to do with Ramsay? --Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did research and added in whether or not the restaurants are open as of 03.02.2012. Whether or not Ramsay was responsible for the success or failure of these businesses, people like me would like a handy place to know what happened to the restaurants after watching episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.209.146 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people "might like" to know. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page or a handy reference guide for restaurant fans (that's what Yelp and Urbanspoon do.) The show is about what Ramsay does when he's there, not about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact. If the restaurants are notable enough, they will have their own articles, where their closures or continuing success can be noted. But here, it's all about Ramsay and what he does during the finite period of time he's in the restaurant, which is what the show presents. If you check the archives for this article, you will find extensive discussion and long-standing consensus not to include the updates, along with a detailed explanation of the policies such updates fail. --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping in an attempt to force the edit won't help your case. Discussion here might. --Drmargi (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the wall of open/close text, and I do agree with what they say about having an open/closed status; but if you're so concerned about Misplaced Pages policies, take a look at what Bar Rescue did in that aspect, using the "Notes" after the last season listed. CasanovaUnlimited (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

if you want to make a case for this article, it's probably best you avoid that one. Just because one article lists open/closed statuses doesn't mean they all should. Furthermore, there are exactly zero sources for any of those closings on that article, at first glance. I'm tempted to edit them out, but, with an 11 month old, it's just not top priority. Maybe later. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a case. There's been plenty of that already. Instead, I'm making a plea. Misplaced Pages has become the "Go to" place to find any relevant source of information, even more-so than Google, and as such articles like this transcend the usual policies and guidelines that are being enforced. People want to know what happened to these places after Gordon left, and there is no single source on the internet that has the information, nor is there any reputable site that has recent information regarding these places; so this article, with any relevant source material found, can be the first place on the internet that has the info, and said info can be removed from the page later when a reputable site has a page dedicated to this. CasanovaUnlimited (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20299_5-depressing-realities-behind-popular-reality-tv-shows.html MMetro (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? Cracked is hardly a reliable source and of the two sources they use for their information, one is completely unreliable and the other has shoddy reliability as well (most of its sources are unreliable, making the entire thing suspect). Furthermore, simply having a source does not negate all of the other reasons to not include the statuses, which have been discussed ad nauseam. Indeed, even this very article states one of the big reasons we don't include them here (which is that Ramsay and his show are, ultimately, not responsible for the restaurants closing). ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The argument & plea that should finally put the matter to rest...

To "Drmargi": I first read this entire section maybe a couple months ago (so, then, maybe, as of this writing, around late May or early June of 2012, or thereabouts) after the very first time I ever tried to find-out what happened to a couple of the restaurants that I saw featured on the Kitchen Nightmares program as broadcast on BBC America (which I've been watching for only a relatively short time). And I've been pondering everything here, ever since. So I really do understand your points, Drmargi; and, moreover, in isolation, I agree, pretty much completely, with every last one of them. However, our very culture, and the changes it sometimes forces on us, sometimes dictates that we can't really look at any of this in true isolation. I beg your indulgence for a moment, then, while I ask you, now, to both reconsider allowing a list of still-open and closed-or-sold restaurants, but done in a truly responsible (which I realize seems impossible, but just hear me out) manner. I humbly pray that you're not so weary of the subject that you'll just dismiss it, out of hand. Please give me a fair hearing, here.

I'm a management consultant (though I concede that only a small percentage of my clients, over my 35 or so years of doing it, were restaurants); one whose firm boasts "crisis management" as one of its areas of expertise. That's, in fact, the thing I've been doing the longest, though it accounts for a relatively small percentage of my firm's overall revenue. My point, though, is that I've actually done sorta' what Ramsay does (sans the cooking expertise, of course; and though I never speak abusively to my clients, as Ramsay obviously thinks is necessary in order to make the show more interesting) in any number of both businesses, and business types; and so not only do I find it all kinda' weirdly fascinating, but I think I have a perspective worth considering.

At least part of my -- and pretty much anyone's, truth be known -- understandable fascination with this whole thing necessarily includes whether whatever Ramsay suggested actually worked; and, of course, the most obvious salient indicator of that could (and I emphasize that word) be whether the restaurant is still open weeks, months or years later (and, yes, I understand your valid counter arguments... please just keep reading, with an open mind).

Obviously, the more time that has elapsed between Ramsay's visit, and the subject restaurant's closing or being sold, then the intuitively less likely Ramsay had anything to do with it...

...especially because, yes, you're absolutely correct: So many of the restaurants -- most of them, in fact -- had so much wrong with them, even before Ramsay arrived to try to save them, that they probably would have closed or been sold almost no matter what anyone did. As a consultant, few -- including possibly even you -- understand all that better than do I. I've consulted with many businesses that retained me after it was actually too late. When so, though, unlike Ramsay, I've always had the courage -- nay, the ethical responsibility -- to say that I probably can't fix it; that it's probably already overwith... moot. Perhaps I can more easily do that because, unlike Ramsay, I have no TV show, the very subject matter of which is the attempt to save the business. As a practitioner of the comparatively-passive martial art of Hapkido, which uses one's opponent's attack energy against him/her, my normal procedure, at that point, is to show the business owner how to do an orderly shut-down or sale of the business (or substantially all its assets) in a manner which complies with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that will also ultimately result in the best possible both practical and financial outcome for at least the owner; and, if s/he consents, for all others concerned, as well (remember that the owner, and not all others, is my client, and so s/he comes first; but it's always nice if I can convince him/her to take into consideration how the closing/sale will affect others, too, and to then act accordingly).

You wrote: "The show is about what Ramsay does when he's there, not about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact."

I'm sorry, but that's just, categorically, inaccurate... and both observably and intuitively so.

Yes, the show's about what Ramsay does when he's there, but part of what he does when he's there is to proverbially teach a man to fish, not merely feed him a fish; to take what he teaches them and to keep going with it after he's gone, else the restaurant, is the clear implication, will fail. The Chef even says as much, somewhere, somehow, in every episode... often at the end, as a way of driving-home the notion and leaving the viewer with that to ponder...

...hence the reason so, so, so many people wonder what actually did happen; and so, then, why there are literally thousands of Google searches on the restaurant's name, accompanied by the word "Ramsay" or the phrase "Kitchen Nightmares" right after an episode airs anywhere. How it turned-out is the implied (and quite intentional) cliffhanger, like at the end of an old Victorian novel, or silent film reel. The viewer is almost driven to find out... and quite by design, I might add. The show, and how it turns-out for the restaurant, are, then, inextricably connected; joined at the hip. It is, then, like it or not, indeed "about the restaurants and what happens to them after the fact." To present, then, the Kitchen Nightmares story, here, without helping the reader know how it turned out for any given of the show's subject restaurants, is a bit like writing an article about some big cure for some disease about which everyone had once heard and cared, but without including whether or not it ever actually worked.

It's also a bit morally unfair, given that most people -- maybe even you, if you weren't so focused on it at the moment, and, therefore, on guard about it -- would probably happily give Ramsay the credit for the restaurant ultimately succeeding, if that's, in fact, what happened.

But there's a bit more of a basic issue at play, here. What's absolutely factual is whether or not the restaurant remained open after Ramsay left. That's provable fact, and discoverable, even if with some difficulty, to Misplaced Pages's standards. What isn't a fact, though, is whether anything Ramsay did had anything to do with it. You're correct about that. However, the two things have nothing, whatsoever, to do with one another.

To refuse to publish the facts for fear of fostering their insensibile misinterpretation (as long as such is not Misplaced Pages's doing by virtue of said facts having been presented in any manner misleadingly or confusingly), is categorically absurd. Implied by it is that it is somehow Misplaced Pages's responsibility to control the conclusions to which its readers come once they've read its presented provable facts. You're concerned about something that's just not any of Misplaced Pages's business; and the hopefully unintended consequence is tantamount to a form of censorship, in this particular case.

If you don't want opinion and/or conclusion published, that's fine... and fully understood... even agreed with. But to stop the publication of facts, because you're worried about what opinion or conclusion could result, takes the notion of "prior restraint" to a never-anticipated and downright ridiculous level!

It's facts, let's not forget, that we want to publish, here. Provable facts.

That readers will make what you and I agree is the insensible connection between those facts and whether or not Ramsay's actions were the proximate cause is simply human nature; part of our brains' need to connect cause and effect. But it's not unreasonable, as our refusal to publish the facts would seem to suggest we believe.

So hard-wired into our psyche is it that the connection actually occurs even before the occurance of what we believe to be the concomitant outcome. People don't hire me to try to save their businesses; rather, they hire me to actually save them. Drug companies don't create medicines to try to save people's lives; rather, they do so in order to actually save them. Professional baseball players don't spend extra time with the batting coach to try to raise their batting averages; rather they do so in order to actually raise them. And ailing restaurant owners don't invite Ramsay to come in and try to fix things so their businesses will not close; rather, they intend for him to actually so do. Intent usually only matters to prosecutors when they're figuring out how to charge a murder suspect; and so the connection between the show and the ultimate outcome for the restaurant is intuitive, natural, and inseparable. Our pretending otherwise is preposterous... and even dishonors, a bit, our very humanity.

Moreover, Misplaced Pages, itself, has set relevant precedent. The post-Ramsay's-visit restaurant's closing (or not) is inherently relevant. It matters, just as much it matters whether any plan to do something -- or any attempt to actually do it -- as described in other Wikidpedia articles, ultimately worked. To try to separate whether the plan and/or the attempt ultimately worked -- in other words, to try to disconnect intuitive and unavoidably relevant cause and effect -- then, is prima facie folly. And that's, in part, why there's been so much controversy about it, here; why you've had to keep explaining it and making your admittedly very valid (even if not necessarily sound, in some cases) points, here. People won't leave it alone because it never even occurs to them not to; nor, as you can see, is it easy to disabuse them of the notion.

And, yes, while you're theoretically right that Misplaced Pages should not necessarily cater to that, sometimes the will of society and culture can force referential sources to include information that its purists might consider to be contrary to both mission and charter. Just ask any of the English language purists (which I'd be, if I worked there) among those who publish most dictionaries.

Misplaced Pages is rife with articles that connect cause and effect. One cannot read, for example, a Misplaced Pages article about war, or any of its main characters; or about medical procedures, or psychological techniques; or about educational approaches, or long-term tactics; and so on, and so on, and so on...

...without said articles making the unavoidably inescapable connections between causes and effects; and -- and this is critical -- not all of which effects necessarily result from their stated causes as provably neatly and obviously as most of us would prefer! Yet there they are, in Misplaced Pages articles, anyway.

And that's because for said articles to fail to make such obvious connections is not only counter-intuitive, but it also flies in the face of the very nature of human curiosity, as well as all writers' implied responsibility to satisfy it... to provide some kind of closure. It is bordering on irresponsible, then, I argue, to ignore the outcome, whatever it is, of Ramsay's attempts...

...even though it's likely that a whole raft of other things which preceded Ramsay's involvement is the real reason they closed or were sold... or even remained open, for that matter.

Cause and effect is inescapbly -- often irritatingly -- a part of our lives. Even not-for-profit organizations, anymore, can't get away with not making the certain, direct-line connection between the money the foundations give them, and the both observable and quantifiable results... to the chagrin of nearly every Executive Director of every non-profit organization on the planet! Cause and effect, cause and effect. Can't live with it; can't kill it.

And even if making the cause and effect connection isn't warranted, special circumstances -- the realities of life and culture and society -- can change the playing field; and so can make it irresponsible for us to not make the obvious intuitive cause-and-effect connection with regard to such as Ramsay and whether his prescriptions actually work. For us not do so do can create an elephant in the room, as in this example...

I believe that everyone who isn't part of the so-called "Religious Right" would agree that neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" are "science," per se; and that the Religious Right's suggesting that science is no different from either creationism or intelligent design because of science's use of the term "theory" to describe its strongest points simply illustrates said Reglious Right's fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory," as used in science; and how said word differs, in science, from the word "hypothesis" and the whole world of scientific postulation, conjecture... even speculation.

Because both creationism and intelligent design fail the tests of provability which the world of science has long held are absolutely necessary in order to keep mere hypothesis and conjecture from being taught as scientific either theory or provable fact, hard scientists argue that if either creationism or intelligent design are taught in schools, then it should be as part of the philosophy or religion curriculum, not the hard science cirriculum. And I, for one, agree with that.

Until recently, scientists casually made the pro-forma argument contained in the immediately-preceding paragraph, and didn't really have to be too awfully vigilant about it. But in recent years the Religious Right has so tried to sneak both creationism and intelligent design into school curricula that the scientific community's vigilance has increased precipitously, and so it has all become a socio-politically big deal... a bona fide news story. Moreover, said vigilance has now escalated to the point -- to such a fever pitch -- that scientists argue that the word "creationism" and/or the phrase "intelligent design" shouldn't even be so much as 'mentioned' in hard science classes so that there cannot possibly be any student confusion...

...and right there is where even I -- one who agrees that neither creationism nor intelligent design should be taught as "science" -- think the scientists go too far. I believe that recent years' activities by the Religious Right have now made creationism and intelligent design such elephants in the "pure science" room that to not at least mention and explain them, as part of teaching real and hard science, borders, now, at long last, on the irresponsible. It's downright necessary, now...

...just as much as teaching about the hypothesis and postulations in the world of hard science, but which could never be proven to the point of becoming bona fide theories, are necessary to hard science's very teaching. To teach what made it to the level of theory in hard science, without also explaining what didn't, would be irresponsible, indeed.

So, too, then, because of what's going on in real life -- in our culture -- would it be irresponsible not to teach the facts about creationism and intelligent design right in hard science classes. But I don't mean teaching them as science. Rather, I mean teaching about them, and their role in our current society; about how many in society are demanding that they be taught as science, and why; and then explaining why they're not science, and then showing how they should be taught, instead... and also why. In other words: It should all be taught so that it not only acknowledes the creationism and intelligent design elephant in the hard science room, but it also tackles it and wrestles it to the ground.

It's not, remember, so much the subject matter of either creationism or intelligent design which raises them to the level of being worth explaining (but not teaching as "science") in a hard science cirriculum; but, rather, it's that life's/culture's recent events now finally make it downright irresponsible not to explain them there.

This notion, though, scares hard scientists to death because they assume that even so much as mentioning either creationism or intelligent design in hard science classes gives them a tiny toe in which could, in time, result in their ultimate acceptance as real science. They fear that because of the facts' being such a hot potatoe, their mere presentation will cause students to come to wrong conclusions. Nothing could be more surprising, coming from scientiests, of all people. And it is, of course, ridiculous. It simply goes too far. It's as ludicrous as trying to teach sex education without actually mentioning sex. Yet just try to make the elephant-in-the-room argument in forums and newsgroups largely populated by hard scientists, and watch the fireworks! For people who are supposed to be open-minded, they can sure be closed-minded about what I'm arguing, here; many, in fact, can't even see it, for their zero-tolerance fervor!

Your steadfast refusal to include whether or not the Ramsay-helped restaurants are still open is, on one hand, good science; and for all the excellent reasons you cite. However, said steadfastness, is a bit like, in terms of its ridiculousness, that of the hard scientists...

...though for a different reason which, in your case, tries to insensibly disconnect intuitive cause and effect, and the very nature of man's curiosity about it; as well as ignores what, like it or not, has, because of what's going on in popular culture and our society, become and elephant in this Kitchen Nightmares room. Because, in part, of the very way that the show is produced, and its cliffhanger endings, people care about whether or not the Ramsay-helped restaurants ultimately succeeded or failed. There's just no escaping that; and whether or not they ultimately closed or were sold is provable fact. That they view whether the restaurant failed as an indication of Ramsay's effectiveness is none of our business as long as how we presented the facts was in no way misleading.

That said, their misinterpretation is a notion of which we are capable, by how we preface and explain the data, of which we're able to disabuse them. It might even be our implied responsibility to do at least that if we deign to present the list of restaurants, and which of them have closed or been sold... regardless of when, or for what reason. That I suspect you can't see a good way of doing that is, no doubt, why you're afraid to do it at all.

It's human nature, though, no matter what we do or think, to automatically makes such connections; and it's folly to either pretend they don't, or to fail to provide the information they seek pursuant to it, as long as we do it in a manner that's responsible because it contains proper explanation and perspective... which I believe there's a way for us to do, here.

I actually know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way every time the Webster's Dictionary prople decide to add a word which, up to that point, I considered a bastardization of our beautiful English language. But if you talk to a linguist, or an English professor, you quickly learn that our language is dynamic and ever-changing; and to not try to change with it is just dumb... regressive, even. The events of our times can make even dictionary entries wrong; and so the dictionary must change to accommodate it. Misplaced Pages, also being a reflection of its culture and times, should do the same... but, again, only responsibly.

In deference to the excellent points you make about why it would be dangerous to do it in the case of this Kitchen Nighmares article, our doing it "responsibly," in my opinion, simply means prefacing it with how no conclusions as to the efficacy of Ramsay's prescriptions should be drawn from whether a restaurant, post-Ramsay, remained open, or was subsequently closed or sold; and then explaining why... especially including how most of them, because Ramsay likely wasn't called-in until it was probably too late, might have closed no matter what he did. How we'd actually word all that, of course, would be another matter; but I'm just saying that I believe it can (and should) be done.

Though I admit that I can see how even trying seems to depart from the cold, hard presentation of facts that should characterize any encyclopedia, it is nevertheless true that encyclopedias nevertheless routinely cross that line, by hook or by crook, all the time...

...as we see in the very kinds of articles to which I earlier referred regarding wars and its player, medicine and psychology, education and its strategies, etc....

...all of which contain no end of both cause and effect, and even analysis thereof. It's simply imposible to avoid a little of that in any comprehensive coverage of something like what Ramsay (or any war general, or football coach) both planned and did; and our trying to avoid it just leaves a big, gaping hole in the information set for the reader who came here in search of answers.

Providing the information that popular culture demands to know with regard to Ramsay and whether anything he did ultimately helped, is little different from a hard science teacher recognizing that popular culture has finally made necessary the responsible (albeit distasteful) explanation of creationism and intelligent design, and why they're not actually science, and in what kind of currcula they should be taught, instead.

A list of still-open and closed/sold restaurants (along with all the responsible caveats and warnings about how and why it should not be considered an indication of Ramsay's effectiveness) could (and should) be included as a part of this Kitchen Nightmares article; however, I wonder if one of the ways of disconnecting it, a bit, from whether or not Ramsay bears any direct or indirect responsibility might be to give the list its own Misplaced Pages page...

...in much the same manner as a musical artist's discography, or the branded products in a certain software category, are often given their own Misplaced Pages pages.

As for finding reliable sources, that's relatively easy... at least theoretically. Ramsay and his show coming to any town is always big local news, and so local media always writes about it; and invariably also always writes about when said restaurants subsequently close or are sold (because they, too, make the painfully obvious, even if insensible, connection between Ramsay's prescriptions, and whether they work). The trick is to simply hunt down the articles; and when the newspaper or radio or TV station's website is so poorly designed that its articles can't be effectively crawled by the Google search engine spider, then the trick is to use Google to at least figure out what local media covers the restaurant's geography, and to then either email and/or pick-up the phone and call said media and ask for the URLs of its stories about the restaurant. Trust me: There's always a story; it's just a matter of finding it. So my point is that it can all probably be fairly well documented, but it would simply take a bit of extra work to do it to Misplaced Pages's standards.

And when that's done, then it is fact, not conjecture, opinion, or conclusion. Your trying to stop that because you fear wrong conclusions will be drawn is irresponsible. Equally irresponsible would be our not providing relevant explanation of those facts so that the readers' marginal propensity to misinterpret them is substantially reduced. The only difference between the two is that the former is tantamount to censorship, whereas the latter is just bad form.

I, for one, would rather risk bad form than be party to censorship. And if we do it right, it won't even be bad form.

So, then, that's my argument... my pitch, as it were. Though it's long (and thank you for wading through it), the upside of its comprehensiveness is that if it fails, here, then it should, I would think, finally put the entire matter to rest and end the whole discussion...

...in largest measure because, humility be damned, it's hard to imagine anyone here making a better case for it than I've just made; or better giving you something to ponder and/or respond to as you reconsider. You did, after all, write, here, that though "IP hopping in an attempt to force the edit won't help ... iscussion here might."

Fine. My foregoing is one helluva' discussion.

Tag. You're it.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't be it if I decline to play, which I do. This treatise appears to be directed at me rather than to the community as a whole. As such, it belongs on my talk page. I haven't got time or the inclination to read a screed of this length any time soon, to be perfectly honest, so please be patient if I don't reply for some time. While you're waiting, you might read the archived discussions here and for the UK show, noting the range of policy issues raised by a sizable number of editors. And for future reference: parsimony is your friend. --Drmargi (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, being long-winded is a fantastic way to get any points you're trying to make be ignored. People don't want to read 25,000 character essays on here when trying to come to a decision (I understand this was meant for Drmargi, but you left it here, not their personal talk page). They want a quick couple of paragraphs that make the point succinctly. I gave a legitimate shot at reading this and by 1/3 of the way through, I got so put off by all of your tangents and original research and ~feelings~ that I skimmed through the rest. From what I can gather, you made precisely zero arguments based on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. That's what matters in this discussion. Period. If you, yourself, said you agree with the reasons we've left them out, but still cry foul because you think discluding the updates, the only purpose of which is to satisfy fans, is "censorship" then I'm not really sure what else to tell you other than try again and use actual policies next time, rather than your gut feeling, which really has no place on Misplaced Pages. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 16:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution ITB! You've been a key part of this discussion all along, and your voice is every bit as important as mine. I can't even make it 1/3 of the way through the post. I'm sure it's all in good faith and designed to help, but I can't get through it, having gotten bogged down in some early contradictions. But I'll keep trying. --Drmargi (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Episode numbering

There's a bit of an edit war developing over the numbering of the "Revisited" episodes. From the first of these, they were never numbered, although I've long ago forgotten why. A new editor insists the episodes should all be numbered, so I'm opening this thread to get a discussion going, and perhaps ferret out the old reason why the weren't. --Drmargi (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

From this discussion, it would seem that Fox decided to renumber the episodes quite some time after they aired, likely for marketing purposes. I noticed something similar with Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This does seem inconsistent that they have a "No. in series" but not a "No. in season". Before this edit there was no number for either. I do think that if the series number increases then it should also have an episode number, which is what the sources currently say. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode entries have to have a unique number in the "No. in series" field (EpisodeNumber) to allow for linking to individual episodes, which is why all episodes were uniquely numbered when I converted from table format to {{Episode list}}. "No. in season" (EpisodeNumber2) fields can contain (almost) anything. For example, revisit episodes could be "Rn" (where n is a number). Subject to finding out what the original agreement was, I'm not against renumbering the season episode numbers to reflect reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The revisited and regular episodes are two different types of episodes. I think what we decided way back when was to go with the original numbering, which did not include the Revisisted episodes, and not make any changes when the Fox website rather oddly adjusted some early episode numbers with no explanation. --Drmargi (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Season Numbering

I noticed a number of sites listing the seasons as 5 and some of the listing it as 6. Fox the official site of this series lists it as 5, yet it's listed here as 6.

I wonder why the discrepancy? Should we not be listing he information as it is stated on the Fox Website?

Pirhounix 14:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs)

1. http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Unassessed Food and drink articles
• Unknown-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles