Talk:The Fat Duck

Assorted clay
That would really be an interesting snack. Some pieces of sweet clay to end a dinner. Geophagy is described as "a practice of eating earthy substances such as clay, often to augment a mineral-deficient diet", but many people around the world eat it because they like it. Just add some sugar and salt to the mix of water and minerals that is going to be clay (what decides the taste in how the crystals are made, just like in chocolate), cut the clay in flat and square pieces and cover them with chocolate. Maybe it would taste good?

Join with article on Heston?
Perhaps joing this article with the article on Heston Blumenthal -- there is quite a bit of overlap in the two articles and since the main interest in the restaurant is the techniques he uses is seems to make sense.

Agree, there is not enough information that just relates to Heston Blumenthal to have his own named page. It would be good to add more info to his page and keep it, so perhaps just move any non-duplicated information from his page onto Fat Duck, and then from a striped down page people might add some stuff.

NPOV
This article reads like an ad for the restaurant. I don't see how to fix it without removing lots of info. 81.1.76.44 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this reads like an advert, more quite a good descriptive. However, the addition of some (constructive) detractive comments is never a bad thing for balance.

Agree that it sounds like an ad, perhaps some links to less than enthusiastic reviews might provide balance?

Jan Moir at the Daily Telegraph, "While one can admire the skill, how bored with life, lunch and eating lotuses do you have to be to find this kind of culinary joke a thrill?": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/main.jhtml?xml=/wine/2004/01/31/edmoir31.xml

Wolfram Siebeck (influential German reviewer) Die Zeit, "Fart of Nothingness": http://www.signandsight.com/features/212.html

Online diner reviews at London Eating, 50/50 divine/inedible: http://www.london-eating.co.uk/1801.htm

etc.


 * It wasn't that long ago that this restaurant was voted best restaurant in the world. Many reviewers obviously think so. While it does sound like an ad, in this case it's not far at all from the truth. Leave the article as is, I say. --Commking 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone is what's problematic, not the content. FAL 07:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change it.. --Commking 07:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This restaurant's 'philosophy' is reminiscent of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, long live the king.


 * I agree that this page reads like an ad for the restaurant. Totorotroll (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than read like a an ad, I'd argue that it was an ad since any of the sources critical of the restaurant are quickly purged by fanboys and fangirls. The section on the norovirus outbreak is risible and is derived from Heston's slippery PR rather than the highly critical HPA report which identified the Fat Duck as wholly responsible for the extent and duration of the outbreak, which was due to the restaurant managements attempts to cover up the events and delay notification to the authorities for over a month. The Fat Duck may not have bee responsible for the presence of norovirus in some raw materials, but it was responsible for the bad working practices that led to it being the largest outbreak in recorded history. Vive la spin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoticus (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note the repeat performance of a viral outbreak causing closure in February 2914. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26006223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.13 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Different restaurant. Miyagawa (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
As pointed out in the talk page of Talk:The Fat Duck, both articles have substantially the same content, indeed the main interest in The Fat Duck is the unique techniques employed by Heston Blumenthal. There’s not really enough information to justify two articles. --Nige 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A reasonable suggestion. Content pretty much the same, with the FD being the product of the application of food science research by Heston. A redirect, leaving the categories the Fat Duck fits into here would seem appropriate and much easier to maintain. It also might allow removal of some of the POV - the present FatDuck article is more like a Sunday Times restuarant critique! Rgds, - Trident13 01:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Might be reason not to - inasmuch as he seems to be "broadening" somewhat - the Hind's Head and BBC TV series to the point where Fat Duck (alone) != H.B. perhaps. H


 * Support merging The Fat Duck into Heston Blumenthal for the reasons listed above. DavyJonesLocker 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One of the best restaurants in the UK deserves an article independent of its head chef. --Oldak Quill 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: The legacy of the man will live longer than the restaurant, I imagine. The restaurant would be nothing without the man. I am listening to Desert Island Discs as I write this, and he spoke of an anecdotal story of how a local had detracted him, because the site of the restaurant had 3 different owners in 5 years. (retrospective signature: Macca7174 14:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Oppose. Both the restaurant and chef are more than notable enough to have their own article.Bertilvidet 20:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current TV series, and a number of books by Heston have little to do with the restaurant except association. The restaurant, as one of the top in the world, should have its own page. charliebrake 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. for the same reasons as charliebrake V8rik 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose silly suggestion, they woulf have to be demerged at some point. Jooler 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A restaurant does define a chef, but the other way round. Blumenthal has two already (AFAIK), Ramsey has several, Blanc has several, etc. The articles should stand alone. JimmyWee 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent restaurant reviews
I think a link to Square Meal would be appropriate for this article because they provide an independent guide to restaurants around the UK, and the site also has a review of The Fat Duck restaurant and chef Heston Blumenthal. (This link)

Mitesh03 12:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mitesh03, is this a site you are connected with in any way (owner, contributor, etc.)? Idontthinkso 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes I am affiliated with Square Meal, its one of the biggest and most highly regarded INDEPENDENT restaurant guides. I stress independent. I think the reviews that we write would benefit articles such as this one and create a fair and open dialogue, what wiki aims to do.

I don’t know how I can add to these articles or create new ones using the content that we already have – where others could add to. I obviously don’t want to spam the site so any help on this matter would be great. Mitesh03 09:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Under Wikipedia guidelines in External links you should not directly add links to sites with which you are affiliated; it is considered a conflict of interest. However, you may, on the discussion page of pages, suggest a link. Wikipedia editors are likely to respond negatively, however, to anything they see as targeting multiple articles with links to the same site. There does not seem to be anywhere to propose this, unfortunately, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an overall policy on whether reviews (of anything) are desirable as links. It may be worth seeking advice on Help desk. It may also be worth seeking some citations to back up "highly regarded" - e.g. newspaper reports, if you seek to set yourself apart from the countless other restaurant review sites. Notinasnaid 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

US Terminology
The UK doesn't have "Zip codes", nor does any country outside the US. The table must mean "Postcode". Also, the table wrongly assumes that everything is in a "City". Bray is barely even a town. Labelling the location heading as "Town/City" would look less stupid. 92.18.217.163 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Closure
The article says that the recent food poisoning scare has caused The Fat Duck to close indefinitely yet the referenced article makes no mention of this. Can we change to 'closed until further notice pending an investigation' or something?

- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.37.150 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

'closed indefinitely' means 'closed until further notice'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoticus (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck
Is it appropriate to say fuck in this article? I don't want to use weasel words, but it seems to me that anyone who knows what a spoonerism is can work it out themselves. How about "a risqué spoonerism"? SimonTrew (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCENSORED.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Toast Sandwich - "Mad Hatter's Tea Party (c.1892)" side dish
I edited The Fat Duck so that "Mad Hatter's Tea Party (c. 1892)" mentions its side dish of toast sandwichs. Likewise, I've included a subsection on the "Toast sandwich" article for The Fat Duck inclusion as a menu item.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

foiegras cruelty
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/barbaric-footage-foie-gras-duck-4793888#ICID=sharebar_facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.143.235 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Michelin star status
This restaurant famously had 3*s but due to technical reasons (i.e. closed for renovation at time of assessment) rather than more conventional (food/experiece) reasons, this restaurant was omitted from the 2016 guide, thus technically 'losing' its status as a 3* restaurant. Pretty shocking that something this significant that happened 11 months ago wasn't on the article. I fully appreciate this is probably a temporary measure, but haven't put this as it would just be unfounded speculation by a non-expert editor. Feel free to amend to reflect this fairly using info that meets WP:IRS (but I feel the fact it lost them - with the explanation - is justified). If we're following an annual cycle, and my guess is accurate, I think this will become moot in a month anyway as the new guide is released and their stars re-instated. Rayman60 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fat Duck. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406132835/http://thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=128544&sid=38280402&con_type=3&d_str=20121121&fc=4 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=128544&sid=38280402&con_type=3&d_str=20121121&fc=4

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"No improvement"
@The Banner: Do you think boxing needs to be wikilinked? Or is it a commonly understood term that doesn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK? Popcornfud (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Try to read the first sentence you have created. Do you really think that is proper English? And why changing the long standing article? At least you should have started a discussion beforehand to change the standing consensus. The Banner  talk 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the repeated "in 2004", that's a typo that can be fixed in seconds.
 * What do you think about boxing? Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also talking about the sequence of the paragraphs that you have changed. And the poor language. Hiding behind some links is not going to improve anything. The Banner  talk 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see what we can agree on before making further changes. Do you agree we can remove boxing or not? Popcornfud (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let us start with the main issues and not with the minor details. Why the incorrect text? Why the change in sequence of the paragraphs? The Banner  talk 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, let's start with what I am hoping are the things we can agree on. I am trying to stay constructive and find common ground first. So if I remove the boxing link, are you going to oppose that? Popcornfud (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with starting with the minor details. The Banner  talk 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to assume you are OK with me removing it, in line with WP:OVERLINK policy, so I'll go ahead and restore that change.
 * Another of the changes you reverted was to correct the punctuation on this quote: He said "Everything was fabulous about the evening – the food, the setting, the service, it was unbelievably good but unfortunately, afterwards, all of us were ill". This brings it in line with the MOS:LQ policy on formatting quotes. I assume you won't discuss that one either, so I'm going to go ahead and restore that change too. Popcornfud (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Clear, the first thing you do is ignore this discussion. Very helpful. The Banner  talk 23:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you think my edits really contained some improvements after all. Popcornfud (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, contrary. The Banner  talk 16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so you actually oppose my changes per WP:OVERLINK and MOS:LQ? Or does your position on these changes remain a secret? Popcornfud (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not so much. I oppose your attitude to plain ignore this discussion. If you don't want discussion and just want to push your opinion, please say so. Then everybody knows where we stand. The Banner  talk 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are going to agree on the other prose changes I made, and I don't think I'm going to change your mind on them.
 * So instead, I'm asking if you will support the minor changes instead, because I believe these ought to be uncontroversial.
 * Do you support the fixes I made per the WP:OVERLINK and MOS:LQ? Popcornfud (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What minor issues are still open and undiscussed? The Banner  talk 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We deleted the boxer thing, so that's moot. You haven't shared your feelings on my quotation adjustment in line with MOS:LQ. Popcornfud (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: I forgot that the quote was from the boxer, so that's moot too. So we're done here.
 * Here's some feedback for you, and I'm afraid you're not going to like it. You don't seem able to admit it, but some of the changes I made in the edit you reverted were in line with Wikipedia policy and totally justifed. I explained this several times, including in my edit summary and on this page, but you have refused to acknowledge this, repeatedly insisting my edits contained "no improvement". You know that was not correct. I suggest you keep that in mind when making blank reversions — don't do it blindly. Popcornfud (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you have already forgotten the sentence in incorrect English? Sorry, to be pointing at that.... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And maybe, maybe you should start reading WP:IAR instead of sticking to the MOS like it is the Holy Grail. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Now your question: Why the change in sequence of the paragraphs? I think it's simpler and clearer to explain events chronologically rather than go back and forth: the first event happened in 2004, the second event in 2009. I can't see any advantage in presenting this information in reverse chronology, and that's not usually how we sequence information on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually, the more important facts come first (the massive number of sick people) and less important things later (a food scare without sick people). There is no real reason to put the less-important case first. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a History section. It should be in chronological order. Popcornfud (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The title of that chapter is "Food scare, closure, and reopening", it is not part of the chapter "History". So it is sensible to start with the most important issues, followed by the less important issues. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right; I misread. However, I think it should be part of the History section. Popcornfud (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? For a restaurant food safety is very important and not a detail to sweep under the rug. And even then is it common the put the important things first. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

With regards to the boxing promoter: what is the relevance of his opinion? Is it not possible to just remove that part? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have no objection to removing that. I don't see it as critically important. Popcornfud (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will remove that. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"On 27 February 2009, Blumenthal closed the Fat Duck temporarily after a number of customers reported (...)" is not an improvement compared with the original sentence "On 27 February 2009, Blumenthal closed his restaurant temporarily after a number of customers reported (...)". Reason for this is that this article is about The Fat Duck so there is no confusion possible about what restaurant we are talking about. In an article about Heston Blumenthal it makes sense, here it is an unnecessary chance and no improvement. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)