Jump to content

Talk:Hotel Hell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content of lede

[edit]

We've got a fine old edit war going over the lead paragraphs of this article. I find the content fine as written, with appropriate redundancy in the lead. That's what's done in encyclopedic writing. However, I do find one sentence needs rewriting for clarity, which I will do once this is settled. --Drmargi (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wholesale, 100% rv of an obviously good-faith edit that was clearly explained in the edit comments is inappropriate and can be taken as hostile. The original rv of my edits were done so quickly after I completed them that it's clear my version was never even read. It was just automatically reverted. First, it is inappropriate to put content about date/time of premeire prior to explaining the show's concept. Also, all the content about the different dates/times that Fox had temporarily scheduled the show to air are totally unimportant as most shows go through a scheduling debate. All that matters is when it was ultimately scheduled to begin airing. Content about The Finder is totally unnecessary. The show does not include a "team of hospitality experts" as was incorrectly stated. There were multiple redundancies with sentences; examples: "that premiered on Fox on August 13, 2012, at 8 pm ET/PT as part of a two-night premiere event" (premiered/premier); "This series is Ramsay's fourth television series" (series/series); and "visiting various struggling lodging establishments throughout the United States, in hopes that their expertise would reverse the establishment's fortunes" (establishments/establishment's). I retained all relevant, encylopedic content and sourcing. Overall, instead of completely reverting my entire edit, it should have been discussed with me or taken to the talk page. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to be thanked for my edits, which clearly improved the article, maintained the good/encyclopedic content, and corrected the grammar/usage problems. If you impartially compare the before and after versions, and take my above comments into consideration, you will see that my edits improved the article and eliminated unnecessary content. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are rarely thanked for their edits. Let's look at what underpins the problem we're facing now: to begin with, you're making bad faith assumptions; see WP:AGF. Recognize that any editor has the right to revert your edits at any time, and that part of WP:AGF is the tacit assumption that such reverts are not hostile. Regardless, in addition to assuming good faith, you are expected to discuss on the relevant talk page and refrain from edit warring, including respecting WP:3RR, none of which you have done. It's a shame, because you have made some reasonable points. Had you initiated the discussion to begin with, we wouldn't be here now, and could probably have found a mutually agreed upon version of the lede. By now, that ship has probably sailed. --Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about "thanked" figuratively, not literally. Haha. I would have been happy to discuss here had an editor opened a discussion rather than simply reverting my entire edit. That, in itself, indicates a level of hostility rather than focusing on specific issues to which someone objects. You talk about my "reasonable" points, but did not elaborate. I believe all my points are reasonable and clearly explain my reasoning and intentions to improve the article. If something I did needed a tweak, then by all means that would have been fine. But to simply remove everything I did shows no intention of trying to work cooperatively with me. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You expect everything to flow to you and to be done to suit you, while you continue to make bad faith assumptions. I'm not interested in trying to problem solve with someone not prepared to work in the manner Wikipedia demands and who continues to edit war; you're now at six reverts, twice the limit. --Drmargi (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment supports my suspicions; that you are only interested in reverting without cause, rather than making the article the best it can be. I have clearly addressed the problems with the content and you have addressed none of them. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to discuss when you're prepared to work toward consensus. Right now, the finger-pointing is getting us nowhere. Bring the discussion back to the edits and just the edits, and I'm happy to continue discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@76.189.121.5 - OK, here are the problems:
  1. Don't edit-war. You've now reverted 8 times and have been reported to WP:3RRNB, as I've told you on your talk page. By forcing your edits into the article in the manner that you have, you've exhibited ownership over the article, which is inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors need to work together. When your changes were first reverted, as an appropriate edit summary was included in the reversion, you should have come straight here and discussed the edits. The onus to discuss is on you, not other editors.
  2. I'll admit that some of the editing you did to the lead was appropriate for the lead but there was absolutely no justification in removing the "Scheduling" section, which is, as I indicated in my original edit summary,[1] was not redundant and was in fact, reasonable encyclopaedic treatment. The lead is supposed to summarise main points in the article, not replace all of the prose. What you condensed should actually be expanded into a "premise" section of the article, as per MOS:TV.
  3. Follow the links that are being provided to assist you. TBrandley directed you to WP:LEDE,[2] if you had followed that link, instead of ignoring it as you have ignored all of the other links that have been provided to assist you, we'd still have a reasonable article to expand upon. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmargi. And AussieLegend, please stop lecturing me and just focus on the content and what's needed to improve this article. This is the first time you've participated, so I'm glad to see you here. And thank you for admitting that some of my edits were appropriate. Anyway, I clearly explained in my first comment above (17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)), in detail, what the problems were before I made my edits. The Scheduling section was solely about all the different times that Fox had considered airing the show, which is totally unimportant and not encyclopedic because most, if not all, shows go through a number of schedule changes before they premiere. No one cares about all the different dates that a show was supposed to premiere; all that's needed is the actual, final date that was chosen. If you want to have a Scheduling section, then move the date it premiered and the day/time it airs each week from the lede to the Scheduling section. And I outlined all the redundancies, which another editor incorrectly claimed did not exist. By the way, I never said the Scheduling section was redundant; Aussie misinterpreted that somehow. I said there were redundancies i.e. wording in some sentences in the article were redundant. I gave all the examples in my first comment above. The content in the Scheduling section was simply unnecessary, not worthy of inclusion. Again, I pointed out, very specifically, the problems with the orignal content. The funny part about this whole matter is that I didn't make any major edits; I simply cleaned-up what was there and removed the unnecessary content (about the temporary premiere dates and the mention of The Finder). Everything else is still there, now in proper order... clean, nice and easy to read. If you want to move the premiere date and date/time it airs from the lede into a Scheduling section, go for it. But with there being so little content right now, I simply didn't see the need for a separate section yet. Anyway, I suggest standing back and impartially comparing my version to the prior version and you will see how much better it reads now, and eliminates the few pieces of unimportant content. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking guidance, which you keep ignoring, for lecturing. You've been provided with plenty of links but you keep ignoring, or misinterpreting them. That fact that several editors have reverted you should be a clear indication of that. The scheduling changes are relevant encyclopaedic content because they include movements not just to fit in other programs, but related Ramsay shows. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics (lecturing, guidance); you get the picture. Your 1-2-3 points above, and your tone, indicate what you are doing. Please, just focus on the article's content. The temporary premiere dates are not encylopedic at all. Otherwise, every TV show article would include all the different premiere dates a network had once considered. All that matters is the final decision; the date it actually premiered. Saying well, it was supposed to start on this date, then that date, then another date... is pointless. Fox's final decision was that it would premiere on August 13, 2012. Period. That's what the article needs to include. And the Episodes section/chart will show readers when each episode aired. My edits were a very simple, grammatically-correct rewrite, which removed a few unimportant details. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I extend my humble apologies to all editors involved in this for my rudeness and edit-warring. I was very hurt because my edits were sincerely intended as a very friendly, postitive effort to improve the content that was already there, and just remove a few pieces that I truly believed weren't necessary. I figured everyone would appreciate the rewrite, which didn't involve that much text. So when I saw editors simply revert my entire edit, it was very frustrating. But I should've discussed it with those who objected, even if they didn't discuss it with me before reverting. Anyway, a very nice editor named TRLIJC19 filed an ANI report about me because of a discussion we had. But I didn't find out about it until after I apologized to him. Oh, well. Haha. Anyway, the administrator who closed the ANI shared his opinion about my edit (and the overall situation). I wanted to share it with you. He said:
"The blind are leading the blind. In the blue corner, a bunch of relatively friendly editors who insist on keeping a bunch of irrelevant detail in an encyclopedic article; in the red corner, an editor who did some cleanup and then resorted to edit-warring (why they weren't blocked I don't know yet) and patronizing the hell out of everybody. How about ignore? (And yes, other editors, that info on Scheduling and all that was not important). BTW, I will archive this, yes. Drmies (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
In case you didn't get it, I'm in the red corner and you guys are in the blue corner. :P
So although my behavior was very inappropriate, the administrator did agree with me about the irrelevant content, including removing the Scheduling section. I hope you will take that into consideration before you simply revert my entire edit again. And please compare my text vs. what I changed it from. Hopefully, you will see the improvement. Also, I do not believe any additional sections are required when there is very little current content in an article, and that the lede can be up to four paragraphs. I read it somewhere but I can't find it right now. I have seen many articles with very minimal content where it's all contained within the lede and there are no other sections. I also remember reading that once you have enough general content, you can create sections. I know this article has a section for episodes, but I'm talking about sections for regular text/info about the show.
Anyway, please see all my reasons for the edit in my first comment of this discussion. That explains everything. I know you'll do what's best for the article. Again, I'm sorry for the disruptions I caused and for hurting anyone's feelings. I didn't mean it. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you're sorry. Words are cheap; I say prove it. Take an editing break until such time as you've learned all the policies you violated yesterday and can abide by them properly. Then continue on your break until you can learn to respect the editors you'll work with and the process of consensus. You did nothing less than harass me most of yesterday, and it's only because of a total failure by our corps of our administrators that you have any editorial privileges at all; you're damned lucky you do. A more experienced editor would have been given a long block for a third of what you did.

As for the article, Drmies opinion is just that; Drmies opinion and it's not binding in any way. Moreover, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what really happened here. The lede needs a total rewrite, so let's see how you handle it, starting with assumption of good faith. --Drmargi (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the main point, is there any support for the IP's edits? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands? None; consensus was against him. I'll look at them side-by-side to see what grammar, etc he fixed. I'd support changes such as that. The rest needs a complete rewrite; both versions have issues with the description of the show and what Ramsay does. The standing version is far too lean and lacks both accuracy and detail. --Drmargi (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season finale summary

[edit]

I've just restored the summary for the season finale again. Claims in edit summary in which it was removed are not correct.[3] While the location information is in the title and location fields, it's not obvious from "River Rock Inn/Roosevelt Hotel Milford, Pennsylvania Coeur d'Alene, Idaho" where each establishment is, so it's clarified in the summary. The fact that the episode is 2 hours long and that it is the season finale is not mentioned at all, so the summary includes these pertinent points. And NO, it's not a copyvio. It should be obvious from my edit histry that I don't do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That summary absolutely needs to be there; I also made a minor adjustment to episode numbering which further clarifies the back-to-back episode structure. I cannot imagine an editor describing the summary as a copyvio, particularly based on intuition alone. If you were an IP, yes, I can see how that could happen. But you're too experienced an editor with too many edits on this article alone for that. Then there's the second revert -- does no one assume good faith and respect WP:BRD any longer? --Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still in production?

[edit]

It's been a year and a half since the first season. Is the current status correct? MMetro (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • People are claiming to have been filmed for the second season, but I just tried to research it, and I can't find any word. The production company says it is in development, and the site appears to have been updated in late 2013. If there is a status other than renewed with no announced date yet, it would seem to be not public at this time. As a short run reality show, they may just be holding it to air as a replacement, but that's pure and unvarnished speculation. In short: good question, and it appears that there is nothing citable of any use. 74.240.193.239 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 Summaries

[edit]

I have attempted to put in summaries for Season 2 episodes and all three attempts have been reverted by three different admins. Obviously I am doing something wrong and would like guidance as to what is acceptable.

Attempt 1 (for the first episode) was a summary that I wrote myself. It was quickly reverted because the hidden note says that uncited content about future episodes will be reverted. I was not writing about a future episode; the episode had aired.

Attempt 2 (for the first episode) was to locate a newspaper article with a two-sentence summary and give full citation. I was thanked for that attempt and it remained for a few days.

Attempt 3 (for the second episode) was to locate a different newspaper article with a two-sentence summary and give full citation. It was quickly reverted for copyvio.

Today I see that the citation in attempt 2 was reverted, something about not following the hidden note.

I just don't understand what is expected and until I get some clear guidance I am not going to put in any more summaries. Snake Oil Salesman (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to you regarding this on my talk page. Attempt 1 was a valid edit and should not have been reverted. Attempts 2 & 3 were both copyright violations and should have been removed. I reverted attempt 3, but missed attempt 2. However, I did point you to the appropriate policy when I warned you.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 21:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so I wrote my own summary for Episode 2 and it was reverted one minute later by a fourth admin, who felt it was not neutral. I give up.Snake Oil Salesman (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand at all why this summary was reverted. Perhaps the editor (who isn't an admin) can explain why it's non-NPOV because it seems a reasonable summary to me. I can understand why you're ready to give up, but please hang in there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hotel Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hotel_Hell&oldid=1206925276"