Jump to content

User talk:DiscoBookworm/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, CaesarsChalice, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing!  DIVINE  17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! CaesarsChalice, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!  DIVINE  17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, CaesarsChalice. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the conflict of interest: there is none. While I have mainly been contributing information about restaurants owned by Gordon Ramsay and his business, I DO NOT have any relationship with Gordon Ramsay, nor anyone in his employ. I am not an employee of him myself, nor of Caesar's Palace or their properties. My wife and I (and our adult son) have always been fans of Ramsay's TV shows, and a year ago (July 2021) - for our 25th Wedding Anniversary - I took my wife to Las Vegas for a week. It was our first time ever...and probably last, since we'll never afford it again. (ツ) During that trip we had our anniversary night dinner at Hell's Kitchen in front of Caesar's Palace, and season ten winner Christina Wilson happened to be there, just two tables over. We also ate on other days at Gordon Ramsay Burger and at Gordon Ramsay Fish & Chips. We also walked by Gordon Ramsay Steak and Gordon Ramsay Pub & Grill.
Again, I have NO relationship with Ramsay or his companies. No conflict of interest. I'm just a "fan" who saw how out-of-date (and missing) various info was on Wikipedia, was bored in his off time (and stuck inside due to the heat of summer), and decided to learn Wikipedia coding and use my research talents to bring some of that info current. I was originally doing this without a Wikipedia account, just letting my IP address mark the changes I made. But when I realized that Christina Wilson's article on Wiki had no photo, and knowing I had a picture I took of her with my wife (which I took last year when she came to our table and wished us Happy Anniversary, along with another nearby anniversary couple), I created an account so I could contribute a version of it cropped to show JUST Wilson's face.
To explain the choice of my username: I was looking in the folder on my computer with all my pictures from Vegas, and I had made the cropped version of the Wilson photo in order to upload it...then I discovered I couldn't upload media like that to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons until I created an actual Wiki account. So, what username to choose? I didn't want to re-use any other username I had from anywhere else. In that tiny moment, I almost considered what I was creating to be a throwaway account...BUT MAYBE I would use it again. At the moment I didn't know. What username to choose? My eye fell upon the open folder of photos I had taken, and there was a pic of my wife in front of the statue of Caesar inside the lobby of Caesar's Palace. And the name "Caesar's Chalice" popped right into my head. Nah, sounds corny. Any other ideas? Sat there for a couple of minutes trying to think of anything else. "Screw it. CaesarsChalice it is!" And I do HUMBLY APOLOGIZE for not realizing that this username choice would make it look to others like I might have a conflict of interest with writing this article later on. Honestly, the name was just a spur of the moment idea (which seems to have backfired).
During the next week after that, I made a few more edits to existing articles here and there, but only while signed out from the Wiki account again, going back to just leaving my IP address (which my ISP - ATT - rotates, by the way; I have no control over that). Over that week, it struck me as bonkers that nobody had yet made a Wikipedia article for the Hell's Kitchen restaurants, despite there being SO MANY articles for now-defunct Ramsay restaurants such as Verre, Foxtrot Oscar, Aubergine, or Union City Cafe. And that the article for the Hell's Kitchen TV series barely mentions the existence of the restaurants, and then only in passing ("the prize for S17 was a job there").
So I decided to use this account I had created, meant for JUST uploading Wilson's photo, to also create an article "Hells_Kitchen_(restaurant)". I first set it up in my sandbox, using the info I'd already written into the 4th paragraph of the article "List of restaurants owned or operated by Gordon Ramsay" about the topic. And then I developed it from there. Made a gallery using mostly photos of mine that I uploaded (but also decided to NOT upload my own pics of things like the Red/Blue Kitchens, or the Beef Wellington, once I realized Wikimedia Commons ALREADY had very-similar pics from other users, available for me to use instead).
I hope this clears things up for anyone concerned. Feel free to ask if you still have questions. CaesarsChalice (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC) CaesarsChalice (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI: last night I submitted a request for changing my username from CaesarsChalice to DiscoBookworm, and it was approved. I hope this helps in the future to help keep people from assuming I am associated with Caesars Entertainment, Caesars Palace, or otherwise have any conflict of interest with writing about Gordon Ramsay restaurants (or any other topic!) which are on their property. DiscoBookworm (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hell's Kitchen (restaurant) (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Valereee was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Sources are routine 'restaurant opening' announcements, many of which are likely written from press releases. We need multiple instances of significant coverage of the restaurants themselves in reliable, independent sources to support notability. Please see WP:Your First Article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
valereee (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There were several citations removed from my original draft because they were sourced from social media sites. I was misled into believing that social media, when used for an announcement of some sort of event (like a restaurant opening), was considered reliable. My responsibility for not paying closer attention to the policies. I've now gone and replaced all of those removed social media citations with legitimate journalistic citations. I hope these are considered reliable enough. If not, let me know. CaesarsChalice (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

email

Hi, CC! I received your email, but for privacy reasons I'd prefer to answer here. Writing articles is hard -- there's an incredibly steep learning curve. I won't re-review -- it's considered best practices to let a different editor review it each time -- but someone will eventually be along. Until then, what I'd recommend is that you, remaining signed in (you can check a box to keep you signed in for a year) go do smaller edits on other pages, adding citations to reliable sources where needed, updating anything that's out of date with reliably-sourced new content, correcting typos, clarifying wording, etc., which will help you with that learning curve. As you learn more, keep updating the draft to reflect your learnings. Do read WP:Yourfirstarticle for helpful information for new content creators. WP:Teahouse is a great place to get questions answered. valereee (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

> I won't re-review -- it's considered best practices to let a different editor review it each time -- but someone will eventually be along.
That's understandable. I'm just wondering if I'll have to re-explain to somebody else that I don't have a conflict of interest, and that my username was just a coincidence based on spur-of-the-moment look at a photo of my wife standing near a statue of Caesar in the lobby of Caesars Palace, and that I'm no employee of Ramsay or Caesars, and that my only relationship with Hell's Kitchen is that my wife and I ate there once for our anniversary. :) CaesarsChalice (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't copy emails here, for privacy reasons, but you're free to open a section here (or reply in the section about COI above) to explain (and you of course are free to copy/edit your own email). I find your explanation (just a fan) believable. :) The reason people are questioning it is because it's pretty unusual for brand-new editors to create articles in their first edits, and when it's about a current organization or living person, we see WP:UPE a lot. That's because dead people and defunct organizations seldom pay to have articles created. The solution for you is to go create an edit history that isn't built around current organizations or living persons. :D valereee (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
> but you're free to open a section here (or reply in the section about COI above) to explain (and you of course are free to copy/edit your own email). I find your explanation (just a fan) believable. :)
Done. Thank you for the guidance. CaesarsChalice (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI: last night I submitted a request for changing my username from CaesarsChalice to DiscoBookworm, and it was approved. I hope this helps in the future to help keep people from assuming I am associated with Caesars Entertainment, Caesars Palace, or otherwise have any conflict of interest with writing about Gordon Ramsay restaurants (or any other topic!) which are on their property. DiscoBookworm (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
> I find your explanation (just a fan) believable. :)
I guess I'm no longer believable?
We talked about this two months ago, Valereee, and just a week ago User:MaxnaCarta approved my draft and made it live. I was so very happy, you have no idea: the effort was worth it!
Now you're ripping it up (vandalizing it!), because it all "sounds too promotional"? I guess it's just my style of writing, that you find too positive. Are you sure you're not being subjective yourself here?
And NOW you're actually accusing me of taking payments to write the article:
> Hell's Kitchen (restaurant)‎ 21:37 +41‎ ‎Valereee talk contribs‎ (Added tag: Abuse of sources here makes me think this is UPE)
I don't know what to do or say at this point. You're going to believe what you want to believe.
I'm just a guy who saw that other Gordon Ramsay restaurants had their own Wikipedia articles, and had visited the Las Vegas location of Hell's Kitchen with his wife for our 25th wedding anniversary, and thought it made sense for Hell's Kitchen to have its own WP article, too. I've tried to keep everything factual, but your opinion is that I'm not doing a good job of it. Such a bad job of it, in fact, that you're practically defaming me by accusing me of wrongdoing.
If you think the Hell's Kitchen (restaurant) article is so bad, then delete it. I don't care at this point. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, but if you do keep the article, be sure to remove all the pictures which no longer make sense to be there, because you ripped out the text from the article which they are meant to go with. Like the picture of the "Putting the Sin in Cuisine" slogan, and the Television Tie-Ins pics of the chef's jackets, the Wall of Fame, etc. No reason for any of that to still be there at this point. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, DB. Yeah, when the article was moved to mainspace, I went in and checked it. I really am concerned. It's hugely long and detailed with a lot of padding that does make it feel promotional, and when a brand new editor creates something like that, it does make us wonder whether you've been paid. That's not always fair, and I apologize if it's not true. But the kind of stuff in that article just feels like what press reps write. Some of the sourcing is very iffy, and some of what's in the article doesn't even seem to appear in the sourcing. For instance, the 'puts the sin in cuisine' thing wasn't in the source that followed, but I did find it in marketing materials on google. That's not a great sign. Valereee (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
> For instance, the 'puts the sin in cuisine' thing wasn't in the source that followed, but I did find it in marketing materials on google. That's not a great sign.
My source of that was the photo I took myself from my above-mentioned trip to Las Vegas about 1.25 years ago (these were all over the Strip): File:HK Las Vegas ad "Putting the Sin in Cuisine".png
Was my putting that exact picture INTO the article not "source" enough?
You took out wording about the first location that said "It opened 26 January 2018...in front of Caesars Palace on the Las Vegas Strip"; your explanation was "Not sure what in front of CP means? Can't find it in source?" It means EXACTLY what it said. If you were unsure, why didn't you TALK to me and ask? I was trying to keep my tendency for verbosity to a minimum there, but I could have reworded it to explain that the HK restaurant in Las Vegas is NOT INSIDE the Caesars Palace building like other restaurants at that resort, but rather in a separate building by itself in front of Caesar's Palace, right at the strip. There's even a photo in the article (NOT my photo; I found it on Wikimedia Commons) which SHOWS it's a separate building in front of CP. HOW is something like that physical location cited in a source? Should I link to a map?
The stuff you did really doesn't make sense, Valereee. For every location I noted how many seats/diners there can simultaneously be at each HK spot. For the one at Atlantic City, I not only explained the total number of seats, but added info that - unlike the other HK's (and most restaurants commonly encounterd), instead of it being a single level this is actually a 3-level arrangement. Just facts. But you ripped that out, and the citation, saying it sounded promotional. In what universe is that an advertisement? I'm just telling WP users interesting in the Hell's Kitchen restaurants the kind of info that I might want to know if I came to that article.
You simply didn't like the way I worded it. What's more, I have to wonder if your big quest to tear up my article was retaliatory, after you made an edit to the Dubai number of seats which said "approximately" and I corrected you to point out it was a factual LIMIT of 260 seats, not "approximately"...PER THE CITED SOURCE. So next you are suddenly ripped out tons of stuff because you can't find it in the source. And doing it again and again, without TALKing to me or giving me a chance to point out where in the source each item is?
And then you say that "because I've abused the sources," I MUST be on the take. Yeah, go to the first word in my article. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Multiple responses:
Using 'puts the sin in cuisine' from your own knowledge and a photo you took is WP:Original Research. We don't do it. Do you remember me telling you that writing an article from scratch was really, really hard? This is why. We have many policies that govern what we can use and how we use it. There's a very steep learning curve here, and as I advised you months ago, the best way for you to do that learning is to go make small edits to other articles. You seem to have pretty much only edited articles surrounding Ramsay, which is unfortunately also not a good sign.
Wikipedia reports what other WP:reliable and WP:independent sources are saying about a subject. We don't use our own knowledge to write articles. Valereee (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
You wrote Tying in with the Las Vegas nickname of "Sin City" as well as the restaurant's name and theme, the marketing for Hell's Kitchen included the tagline, "Putting the Sin in Cuisine." Several times during the seventeenth season of the Hell's Kitchen TV show, Ramsay was heard referring to the Vegas location as "the flagship Hell's Kitchen restaurant." None of that was in the source. If no one else is talking about it, we don't talk about it. Valereee (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, it just seems like a natural connection to talk about the connection between Las Vegas being "Sin City" and a promotional slogan for HELL'S Kitchen that talks about "Sin"...but you're right, I had no source to cite that shows a connection to that. And for people (presumably you) who didn't watch that season of HK the TV show, then I suppose no...you wouldn't have heard Ramsay repeat that again (and again and again).
So why not just remove THOSE ITEMS? Why rip out everything else?
One of the reasons that the HK restaurants got created - and yes, that was cited in the sources! - was because Ramsay wanted to give fans of the show a place to come experience what it would be like to eat at the "restaurant" (fake one in a studio) that diners on the show ate at. I made an entire section that discussed all the ways they tried to make that connection between the TV show and the real restaurant. I put in photos with examples. How was that "promotional", and why did you remove it? The reason a person looking into the HK restaurants would most likely wonder how the restuarants try to make you feel like you're in the TV show! DiscoBookworm (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
You're literally expecting I should check every single assertion in each source to see if maybe some of them were supported by the source? No, you should make sure whatever you write is supported by the source.
When you make an assertion and provide a source, we expect every bit of that assertion to be supported by the source or sources. Every bit of it. When even one bit of it isn't, we're going to assume you were being at best sloppy, and in the case of commercial entities or living persons, we're going to be very suspicious.
If commercial entities and living persons are what you want to write about, you are going to have to be very, very careful about what you source. Valereee (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL, Valereee, it is YOU who were sloppy. There might have been one or two items I wrote that weren't adequately supported by the cited sources, but you then went and assumed the vast majority of what I wrote had to be unsupported by the cited sources.
Even now, you've left citations on the article that are no longer needed because you removed the text they were meant to support. Sloppy.
You were wrong, and you are wrong. You'll never admit you were wrong, or undo what you did, because you proudly say on your user page how you've been on WP for 16 years...and you can't let yourself be wrong compared to a newbie like me, can you? So you are going to rationalize and justify all that you've done.
And your are your own little ruler of this domain. I don't know if User:MaxnaCarta can help me, but probably not (even though they are a lawyer, per their own user page). So I guess that I have nobody to appeal to for justice. I lose.
> If commercial entities and living persons are what you want to write about, you are going to have to be very, very careful about what you source.
What, you think I'm going to subject myself to more of this? No. You've chased off another potential Wikipedia editor. No wonder I was warned that the admins on WP are absolute terrors. I should have given up two months ago. I decided not to be a quitter. I should have been a quitter. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Right. You’re crossing a line now. I strongly suggest you log off for a while @DiscoBookworm. I am not impressed by the way you’re talking to another editor. Valeree was calling your contribution sloppy. I feel as though you’re now very close to engaging in a personal attack on another editor and this is not acceptable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I'll log off and cool down. But I'll point out that it feels like a personal attack to be accused of taking undisclosed payments. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @DiscoBookworm, good choice. Take a day, and then go through the article and start to address the tags Valereee left. It is absolutely not a personal attack to leave a Wikipedia template in good faith on an article. I do not see her making any accusations, merely scrutinising. I myself should have scrutinised your article more carefully. I was taken in by the "halo effect" of excellent formatting and that its a highly notable topic. After a quick review I think it is an appropriate topic for inclusion, but there are issues. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. I'm not going to "go through the article" and address anything. @Valereee waded through that article and took out far too much. The part about the Southern California site doesn't even mention the location any more:
> A fourth location, replacing an all-you-can-eat buffet, opened in August 2022.[11] It can accommodate 332 diners.[12]
It's too much work for me to re-do everything I took months to do. I'll leave this to either be deleted outright, or else somebody else can take it up and repair it. DiscoBookworm (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta and @Valereee - I saw your discussion on Val's talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valereee#Sigh
I see you still have your doubts about whether or not I have a COI. At this point I don't know how to convince you that I'm not an employee of Ramsay or his companies (or indeed am or am not an employee of anyone). I've just been a fan, but people are going to believe whatever they want to believe.
I think the only way I'm going to convince you (eventually) that I wasn't getting paid to write that article...is to stop writing it. After all, only someone getting paid would try to continue, right? After putting in so much work for what turned out to be no reason.
In various discussion boards around the 'net (Reddit and elsewhere), people talk about this sort of thing happening. Be aware that WP admins are getting a bad reputation. People warn other people off about contributing here. Despite that, I tried anyway. I didn't listen, and I am now suffering for my belief that I could possibly have a different experience.
So I have made one final edit, to leave the article into some kind of shape I can be proud-ish of, and still follow Valereee's edicts.
At this moment in time I have no plans to continue with this on Wikipedia. It was suggested to me by admins that I simply take up other topics, and about non-living people or no-longer-existing companies. Sorry, I can't have interest in researching topics I don't care much about. And even so, the lesson I've been taught as a new WP editor is that I'll put in months of effort just for fun, and be told I'm no good, and get frustrated and depressed when everything I wrote is removed, and then with false accusations piled on top of that. As stated, it's no fun.
Since I'm not getting paid for it (really!), I get nothing out of it when somebody like y'all reverses all of my work.
I will assume everybody was acting in good faith (to borrow the phrase Max used), but I don't think you realize how heavy-handed this feels to the people on the receiving end. If an editor should assume an admin is acting in good faith, then the admins should assume the editors are also acting in good faith. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Take care. - DiscoBookworm (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
DB, yes, that's the best way to allay concerns: stop editing the article. But, no, many editors who've put in work that has been reverted do want to try to collaborate to find compromise. That's how WP works: I make a change, you express a concern about that change, and we discuss.
Yes, we do try to assume good faith; it's even in policy at WP:AGF. And when you came in with your first edits and created an article, which is highly unusual, I took your assertion that you were just a fan at face value. And the level of promotional detail that the organization would love to have included which you put into that article may in fact just be a newbie error; again: very steep learning curve, and I am trying to assume good faith. Creating articles from scratch is hard. But it did make me rethink whether you might also be someone who was employed by the company and maybe thought that meant you couldn't edit at all, and so you'd decided to try to fly under the radar. I understand that if you are just a fan -- and honestly, being just a fan can be a COI all by itself -- this feels insulting, and if that's the case, I'm very sorry. The problem is that many living people and commercial entitites do in fact pay people to come in here and write articles about them, and it's a constant source of work for other editors -- none of whom are paid -- to try to maintain neutral coverage in the face of an army of people whose living depends on getting the article the way the client wants it.
And the advice you were given was good; the problem is living people and existing commercial entities. Other editors seldom are concerned about UPEs at other articles. If literally the only subjects you have any interest in happen to be the exact same subjects that would be happy to pay to have an article saying exactly what they want it to say, this hobby may not be a good fit for you.
Best to you. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what Yeah, go to the first word in my article means? Valereee (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@DiscoBookworm yes I approved the article. No I do not think there is evidence this was paid editing. I also stand by my review. However I please request you cool down. Your tone to me reads as heated and defensive. Please stop yelling (writing in caps) when talking to @Valereee or indeed anyone else. She as an editor, like any editor, has the right to question your work. She has the right to question my work.
It should also be noted that she is an administrator. Now while administrators are not necessarily more important or deserving of respect than anyone else, she has been elected by a cohort of peers to be someone with a high understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This means you please need to take her feedback with due care and attention and listen to what has been said. While I firmly believe this article subject is appropriate for Wikipedia, that does not mean I think the article is perfect as no article is perfect. As a new article there appear to be some issues Valeree is working with you to address, and it is important you please cooperate without taking anything personally.
Please assume good faith and understand we work collaboratively here. The article does not belong to you, it belongs to every single editor and reader of Wikipedia, so it may be questioned.
Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay

I have some difficulties with your edits on Gordon Ramsay. I have already edited the info on The Fat Cow, as that became confusing. But this is an article about the person. Digging deeply in his restaurants is a bit out of scope. Perhaps own articles about his chains can be useful. For now, I want to request you to trim the restaurant info a bit back to the bare essentials. The Banner talk 15:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

My primary edit to the Gordon Ramsay article was meant to be about the deal with Lion Capital. As I edited that, I noticed that the nearby Street Pizza paragraph only talked about 2 locations. Since I'm the person who brought the List of restaurants owned or operated by Gordon Ramsay article up to date over the course of many months in early 2022 (most edits done before I even created my Wikipedia account, so you'll see them as an IP address), I knew there was more than 2, so I added a bit of wording.
Since Street Pizza is connected to Street Burger, and since people sometimes confuse Street Burger with Gordon Ramsay Burger (formerly BurGR), I also added a couple of brief paragraphs about those two chains. While positioning the Gordon Ramsay Burger paragraph in chronological order, I noticed that the previously-existing paragraph about 2012 openings, which talked about The Fat Cow and also Union Street Cafe, both spoke as if those two were still open. I merely added wording to say they were both gone now.
I 100% agree that it makes sense for you to break those two out into separate paragraphs (Fat Cow and Union Street). However, you re-used the citation for Fat Cow at the end of the Union Street Cafe's paragraph; you ought to go fix that. :)
There's also an issue with some paragraphs italicizing the names of his restaurants (why?) and others not doing so. I chose no italics: I don't see anything in WP:MOS that supports a policy of italicizing restaurant names. Am I overlooking something in that policy?
I also 100% agree that it makes NO SENSE for ALL THAT restaurant info to be there in the "Gordon Ramsay Holdings" section of the Gordon Ramsay article. As the person who brought List of restaurants owned or operated by Gordon Ramsay up-to-date, I don't think we need all that info in multiple places. At some point about 5-ish months ago (EDIT: I checked; it was actually at the beginning of July), someone else noticed that a section of the Gordon Ramsay article had its own section called "Restaurants owned or operated by Ramsay", and that WP editor replaced everything there with a simple link to the "List" article I was in the process of updating. They also altered the Infobox on the Gordon Ramsay article, to shorten all the restaurants listed there to only the Michelin-starred ones.
When the article I wrote called Hell's Kitchen (restaurant) went live a couple of weeks ago, I added that to the infobox (since HK is so identifiable with Ramsay), and added a brief paragraph to the Gordon Ramsay Holdings section. I didn't, and still don't, plan to make the Gordon Ramsay article any kind of project of mine. So no worries that you'll see me back doing much of anything else.
Actually, I would challenge you (or someone else; I'm not going to do it) to find out if the company even IS still called "Gordon Ramsay Holdings" (I don't think it is; the name no longer appears anywhere...the copyrights on their websites, the "about" on their press releases, and their LinkedIn account ALL CURRENTLY CALL IT just "Gordon Ramsay Restaurants"). Things like Gordon Ramsay Wines and Hell's Seltzers are copyrighted to the wine cellars and the brewery which produce them. His TV shows are now produced by "Studio Ramsay Global," which is "A Fox Entertainment Company." Nothing is billed to "Gordon Ramsay Holdings" in 2022, so I believe that section ought to be renamed. It ought to be made much shorter, and info about the restaurants that might go in that section should simply again be referred to the "List" article I'm already keeping updated.
Over time, people HAVE lost sight of the fact that the Gordon Ramsay article should be about the person, and not every detail of everything he's tried to accomplish in his businesses. The entire section of "Gordon Ramsay Holdings" should perhaps be about the foundation of GRH, a rough description of how many years it was GRH and how much of it was Gordon and how many restaurants came (and went) during that time, the split with his father-in-law, and the eventual metamorphosis from GRH to GRR/GRNA. Mention that he's licensed his name to both wine and hard seltzer, that he still partners with Caesar Entertainment but is trying to mostly own properties outright whenever it makes sense, talk about the Studio Ramsay stuff, and leave it at that. The shorter and sweeter, the better, if you ask me.
Good luck! - DiscoBookworm (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
You are right that I mixed up the re-used sources. I have corrected that now. The Banner talk 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Ow, and challenge accepted. At least in 2021 it was still named "Gordon Ramsay Holdings". See: Lucky Cat Noodle changes name after Gordon Ramsay copyright row. The Banner talk 17:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll just quickly point out that this is a news article calling it "Gordon Ramsay Holdings" in the headline, but also calling it "Gordon Ramsay Restaurants" at the bottom. It's possible that the writer didn't know any better than the Wikipedia editors do what the current name is of that company!
I was very frustrated the other day to see an article (https://www.mylondon.news/whats-on/reviews/i-went-gordan-ramsays-new-24967578) in which the journalist says, "The Islington branch is Gordan's fifth Street Pizza venue, joining restaurants in Battersea, Camden, Southwark, and St Paul's"; she (and any editor) failed to check the facts and either mention the Street Pizza locations that are already open in Dubai and in North Carolina, or else simply say it's the 5th venue IN LONDON.
For the upcoming 21st season of the American version of the Hell's Kitchen TV show, there are several articles which state that the winner of the 21st season gets a job offer at Gordon Ramsay Steak at the Paris Casino/Resort in Las Vegas. That's incorrect, they are quoting the prize given to the Season 20 winner. Season 21's winner gets the Executive Chef job offer at the about-to-open (in nine days) Gordon Ramsay Hell's Kitchen restaurant at the Caesars Atlantic City Hotel/Casino in New Jersey.
Don't trust those newspaper articles for "facts"! :)
Signed, a guy who used to write for TV Guide - DiscoBookworm (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't trust TV Guides . Luckily, The Caterer is - in my experience - a reliable source. Beside that, it is not impossible that the official name is "Gordon Ramsay Holding" but that they use "Gordon Ramsay Restaurants" as trading name. The Banner talk 19:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DiscoBookworm/Archive_1&oldid=1111267011"