Talk:Dirt Candy

Promotional?

Drmies removed both pictures along with the paragraph listing some of the dishes that have come up in the reviews with edit summary "this is way over the top: promotional". Could you elaborate on how it's "way over the top"? As a criticism, the edit summary seems, err, way over the top. :P

Something that very quickly becomes clear in the sources is that the notability of this restaurant is due to its unusual vegetarian preparations/presentations. To the point that the quality of the dish itself is typically secondary, and all other aspects of the restaurant scarcely mentioned. How is it more encyclopedic to, rather than include specific evocative examples that multiple reviewers bring up, include a more general summary/gloss? How is it more encyclopedic to remove images of the things the sources talk about (e.g. the portobello mousse is described in many early reviews)?

FWIW I have no connection to the restaurant, apart from having eaten there a couple times (and neither time have I had the portobello mousse, because it's an affront to all that is good and decent in this world). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW I'm not saying it couldn't be improved/edited; only that chopping a paragraph, 2 pictures, and a reference is entirely unnecessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've written several articles about restaurants myself and the tone of this one looks fine. It certainly needs some pictures and still needs some pictures of the interior and exterior to help us understand what it looks like. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Rhododendrites, I'm not saying you're on the take. What I am saying is that that content was over the top, as was the laundry list of "things what were written up". You know we should not write every detail into every article just because it is verified. Yes, "more general" is "more encyclopedic". Andrew D., I'm sorry, but I don't put that much stock in your opinion. As it happens I also have written up restaurants and food and breweries and what not. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I can't believe you put that stuff back in just in time for the front page. This article deserves to be tagged for advertising. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I know you're not saying I'm on the take. Just putting that out there just in case. You still haven't explained why it needed to be removed, along with the pictures, though? In what way is it problematic for NPOV? We include aspects of a subject in proportion to those aspects' weight in reliable sources. If it were just a menu based on a primary source, or listing examples based on what I thought was interesting, that would be one thing, but when e.g. The New York Times posts a blog post about a particular dish and goes into detail describing another one in a full review, and the same dishes come up in multiple reviews, that's not insignificant. Also, it wasn't put back in just in time for the front page. It was put back in 7 hours into the DYK cycle (it seems either the second DYK is late or not happening today?). Regardless, I don't have a problem commenting it out until this can be worked out after it's off the main page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Food photos easily become food porn easily become advertising, such as here. It's not the same as posting a picture of a bacon explosion: here we are talking about one specific restaurant, and a pretty picture of their pretty food. That should be obvious--you've been here long enough. And I did explain: look up. Excessive content which, while verified, strongly lead this article toward advertisement. Of course it's not "insignificant" that they get good coverage: that's why it passes GNG. But it is UNDUE to focus so much article space on all the delicious dishes, which practically turns this into a menu while looking encyclopedic with all the right references. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I look above and see your opinion about what a restaurant article should/shouldn't have. We base articles not on what an editor says are the things we ought/ought not to cover about a type of subject with disregard for sources, but on what the sources themselves say are the significant aspects of the subject. This is all based on reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. As the food is what the sources talk about, pictures of the food are the only kind of pictures that make sense. Why would it be ok to say "nevermind what the sources say, we must only depict the building itself"? How is that more encyclopedic than illustrating what the sources talk about? Something isn't undue based on its content -- only in relation to coverage of that aspect of the subject. And here a single paragraph with some examples highlighted -- often in detail -- by reviews over a 10-year period is not undue. I don't have time to continue this at the moment. I'll work on editing it to make sure each one has a good argument for inclusion (i.e. more than just a mention somewhere, say) later. It's commented out for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Rhododendrites; I'm afraid I have to agree with Drmies to an extent here, regarding the overall tone of this article. Not meaning offense, I think you may be slightly missing the forest for the trees on this one. To start with, I'm not overwhelmed by the quality of the sources here, an issue I think Drmies gave a bit of a free pass to in his comments. Many of the sources are primary in nature and not truly independent of the subject, while most of those that are secondary and independent are blurbs arising from the food pages of local newspapers and magazines (even if those sources are the like of New York Magazine or the local edition of the Times). Drmies is absolutely right that "verifiable ≠ absolutely appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article", and while WP:WEIGHT (as you point out) is sometimes about evaluating the emphasis of the relative topics touched upon in the sources, that's only a part of the analysis.

To get down to specifics, comments like "With the new location, the menu expanded, a bar was added, and Cohen began a policy of no tipping, instead adding 20% surcharge to every check and paying employees a fair living wage." are just simply not relevant to an encyclopedic summary of the restaurant as a topic and have a strong odor of boosterism, intentional or not. Likewise, listing the address of a restaurant is a plain violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTADVERTISING, as far as I can tell, since it's only likely use would be for customers. However, on the core issue you and Drmies are presently batting back and forth (the photos) I have a mixed opinion. I see what Drmies is getting at and I think it's a slippery slope to begin previewing menu items from specific restraunts, but to the extent we allow restraunts as notable topics, it may be the single most relevant thing we can present via photograph, as you note. However, bear in mind that there may be a second issue which has not yet seemed to enter discussion; I'm not sure that is permissible under our local policies, the WMF's, or copyright and other intellectual property law generally for us to be hosting images which represent another party's product, without the express issuance of a license for that purpose. That's an issue you may want to raise at Commons, if you are not already certain about the answer, because there are really two possible levels policy/legal considerations here, and I expect we may be on the wrong side of one of them by hosting these images, seemingly taken from the Flickr page of a third party. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Many of the sources are primary in nature and not truly independent of the subject

• there are a handful of primary sources, indeed. Largely to supplement things that were mentioned in secondary sources. There is a little bit of usage of interview material published in reliable sources independent of the subject. Regardless, there's not much here that's dependent on primary sources.

most of those that are secondary and independent are blurbs arising from the food pages of local newspapers and magazines (even if those sources are the like of New York Magazine or the local edition of the Times)

• ? You say "local" like The New York Times (even its blog or local edition) is some smalltown paper as opposed to a publication with a big staff, editorial oversight, and wide geographic reach.
• Calling the sources "blurbs" is just misleading. Blurbs are by definition short promotional pieces, so if you are trying to characterize something as promotional, using that term is helpful, but these are not blurbs. These are instead short articles/reviews/news pieces. Not as good as a full review, but not unreliable and not promotional (if you spot a press release/ad/promo, please remove it).
• There are some mediocre-to-pretty-decent blogs among the sources, indeed. E.g. Eater and Gothamist. Again, not ideal sources, but for what they are, they're pretty reputable to my knowledge (i.e. I think they would pass muster at RSN).

comments like "With the new location, the menu expanded, a bar was added, and Cohen began a policy of no tipping, instead adding 20% surcharge to every check and paying employees a fair living wage." are just simply not relevant to an encyclopedic summary of the restaurant as a topic and have a strong odor of boosterism, intentional or not

• There are two components to this sentence. First is the new location. A basic comparison between two versions of the subject seems like a pretty straightforward fact (i.e. it's bigger, the menu is bigger, and they have a bar now). If the issue is in the way that basic fact is written, as I've said, I've no problem with it being edited (this thread is an objection to removal of a bunch of content with no attempt to edit it).
• The other component is the tipping. I would understand, if I had not read the sources, how getting into what seems like a detail could be promotional (FWIW I had '"consistent" living wage' which was changed to '"fair" living wage' by someone else earlier). However, google "'dirt candy' tipping" and count the many sources just on that particular subtopic (it's a big thing in the restaurant industry right now, it seems, and this place is regarded as kind of a trend-setter -- not that I'm advocating calling them a "trend-setter" in the article, of course). If anything, it's an aspect that should be expanded rather than cut.

listing the address of a restaurant is a plain violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY

• There's no address here. There's a statement that it changed location and is now on a notable street in Manhattan. That said, there is a parameter in {{Infobox restaurant}} for "street address". Presumably not everyone sees it as a notdirectory issue. Regardless, only the name of the notable street is in the article.

copyright law generally for us to be hosting images which represent another party's product

• No. Food -- even fancy food -- is not copyrightable in the United States. There are trademark considerations sometimes, but not copyright. The only copyright is the photographers, and it was properly licensed.

Look, this is getting pretty weedy at this point. I'd like to propose tabling this temporarily. While I object to many of these challenges and the removal of the content, I think that I can improve the sourcing and/or language used in a way that may give less of an impression of promotionalism. It's off the main page now and paragraph that was most controversial to Drmies is hidden from view for the time being. Give me a few days to find time to revise and I'll ping you to get your thoughts. Apologies if my responses sound a little frustrated. I don't think I've had a charge of promotionalism directed at an article I created before. Though I think you're both mostly wrong :) I understand it's a good faith critique and I ultimately could see how some of the language could be improved, so again, I'll ping you soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: (edit conflict) -- response is to this version. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi again, Rhododendrites. Yes, by all means, if you think my perspective can be useful in contemplating your efforts in ironing out the issues, please feel free to ping me when you've drafted the new content. I do have some objections to some of your counter-arguments above, but as you suggest, there's no point in getting bogged down (and potentially more entrenched) in debating the points when you may arrive at more ideal wording while working on the matter.

However, there is one issue that I would caution you to reconsider: don't be too dismissive of the possibility of infringement of intellectual property in those images. There are many, many circumstances under which copyright law can reach to work which is itself not copyrightable. The examples most relevant to the present situation are the derivative work doctrines; in the U.S. intellectual property scheme in particular, the case law in this area has reached to a lot of different kinds work product. I'm not familiar with a specific case involving food, but I'd be surprised if the issue hasn't come to bar before. And there are other property interests which can reach to food (but I take it you know this already, having referenced trademark law as an example). And regardless of the legal landscape, Commons may well have developed policy in this area based on the precautionary principle, as that segment of the community often does. Anyway, I'd be surprised if the issue had not at least been raised there, though I could find nothing exactly on point in the Commons policy pages or Village Pump archives. Personally, I certainly have no intention of making the argument that the images should be deleted, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be an issue at some point in time. Anyway, ta for now! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A fair call for caution. Though it is something I've looked into quite a bit in the past (interpretations of "useful articles" in general). To summarize what I gathered from the cases/analyses I read was that (a) obviously, by default food is a useful article; (b) copyrightable works may exist in conjunction with a useful article if they are "physically or conceptually separable" from the useful article (e.g. a fork with a little statue glued onto the end of it); (c) what is "conceptually separable" is a mess, but cases seem to err on the side of things not being conceptually separable, and I don't think I've seen any successful food-related claim; (d) Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. clarified it a little more, saying that "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features" on top of a useful article can be conceptually separable. So if they add something "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature" onto the food, rather than turning the food into something that looks artistic, then there may be a claim? Honestly, I cannot imagine the crowd at Commons coming down on the side of separability in the case of creative plating/assembly/preparation like this. We don't have an established policy there (I had to dig a few months ago when I nominated a picture of a Christmas lights display for FP and a related question came up), but experience at DR and VPC there indicates to me a strong preference to err on the side of not assuming copyright/separability. Anyway. Getting off on quite a tangent now. :) It's interesting, though. I'll ping you when there's an update here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

relevant reading, if interested. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, and very elucidating, thank you; I was not up-to-date on the holding of Star Athletica with regard to useful articles. Myself, I was wondering if there might be a trade dress issue (thus forming the basis for a derivative work problem) since trade dress protection does not require prospective registration. I also presume that there are doctrines which function similar to right of publicity protections, but which operate in the commercial sphere, such that companies are able to control the image of their products; I presume, without being certain of the fact, that such doctrines exist, based on what I do know about proprietary image rights in common law. I may well research the matter when I have time, just because I am intrigued now, but the more I look into/at the issue, the more convinced I am that you are right and I may have been overthinking things in expecting commons to have created a firewall, when this issue (if it is an issue) is probably off their radar. Anyway, thanks again for the info! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)