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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Not even a date for the closure of "Yonder", plus a row around the chef (not the restaurant). No in-depth description. As listing, not useful as source. The Bannertalk00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have reverted your revert again. This info is spammy and irrelevant. Cutting it out makes the article better and better readable. Reviews are not good and reliable sources. The Bannertalk18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree. Reviews are helpful. I don't see these details as spam or irrelevant. You've said similar comments at Bluehour and some other restaurant articles, even though other editors have disagreed. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reviews are poor sources. Often they are not independent. The article in your version reads like spam. Dropping loads of references does not make a run-of-the-mill restaurant notable. And please, do not start and edit war. The Bannertalk18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not particularly interested in these articles any longer, although I may come back at some point, perhaps next winter, with a group to examine each and every restuarant article in turn to see if it notable and try and delete the non-notable ones. What I will say is that product details for a company are highly promotional and breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use as promotional advertising content. Reviews are poor sources. Besides that it makes me more and more inclined to think your an undeclared paid editor, when you disagree with what clear consensus. scope_creepTalk18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've not finished with it by a long way. Also this is collaborative project. If you want to be left alone, leave wikipedia now, buy a hut in the Andes and move in. That will help you to be left alone. I'm sure of it. scope_creepTalk19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This article does not seem to merit existence - a closed restaurant which was open for about three years? Really? If this was relevant then I could add articles for every restaurant I helped open (all two of them), but I wouldn't because I think some restraint is in order. Never mind, I just checked and they both already have entries... Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The Banner, I'll ask again, can you please explain how the sources you've removed from the article are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've used The Oregonian, Portland Mercury, Eater Portland, Portland Monthly, the Food Network, and Willamette Week. Please be specific about which of these are problematic and why. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)21:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You mean that asking for proper sources is in your opinion "vague obstructionist rhetoric". You have nothing better on offer then this? No better sources or so? The Bannertalk22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with AB here. The content is neutral, the sources are reliable, and TB is avoiding directly laying out their complaints by repeating vague accusations. I will look forward to restoring the content based on consensus, but I can wait to see if any other comments roll through.
ɱ(talk)13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Not even a date for the closure of "Yonder", plus a row around the chef (not the restaurant). No in-depth description. As listing, not useful as source. The Bannertalk00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have reverted your revert again. This info is spammy and irrelevant. Cutting it out makes the article better and better readable. Reviews are not good and reliable sources. The Bannertalk18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree. Reviews are helpful. I don't see these details as spam or irrelevant. You've said similar comments at Bluehour and some other restaurant articles, even though other editors have disagreed. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reviews are poor sources. Often they are not independent. The article in your version reads like spam. Dropping loads of references does not make a run-of-the-mill restaurant notable. And please, do not start and edit war. The Bannertalk18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not particularly interested in these articles any longer, although I may come back at some point, perhaps next winter, with a group to examine each and every restuarant article in turn to see if it notable and try and delete the non-notable ones. What I will say is that product details for a company are highly promotional and breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use as promotional advertising content. Reviews are poor sources. Besides that it makes me more and more inclined to think your an undeclared paid editor, when you disagree with what clear consensus. scope_creepTalk18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've not finished with it by a long way. Also this is collaborative project. If you want to be left alone, leave wikipedia now, buy a hut in the Andes and move in. That will help you to be left alone. I'm sure of it. scope_creepTalk19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This article does not seem to merit existence - a closed restaurant which was open for about three years? Really? If this was relevant then I could add articles for every restaurant I helped open (all two of them), but I wouldn't because I think some restraint is in order. Never mind, I just checked and they both already have entries... Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The Banner, I'll ask again, can you please explain how the sources you've removed from the article are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've used The Oregonian, Portland Mercury, Eater Portland, Portland Monthly, the Food Network, and Willamette Week. Please be specific about which of these are problematic and why. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)21:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You mean that asking for proper sources is in your opinion "vague obstructionist rhetoric". You have nothing better on offer then this? No better sources or so? The Bannertalk22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with AB here. The content is neutral, the sources are reliable, and TB is avoiding directly laying out their complaints by repeating vague accusations. I will look forward to restoring the content based on consensus, but I can wait to see if any other comments roll through.
ɱ(talk)13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply