Talk:UWink

The Location Review Link

First to clear this off - I did not add the link originally. Secondly, there is not editorial oversight, the reviewer aptly describes their mostly pleasant experience in one of the locations and tries to relay that to the reviewer. She does counter with two critical experiences (the card reader and the atmosphere). Lack of an overall bad experience does not constitute editorial oversight, and there certainly is no guideline in WP:EL regarding restaurant /location reviews. Thirdly, regarding the claimed commercialism, its a location review - not an advertisement by uWink. The person is not affiliated with uWink, and is in fact a reporter for the Ventura County Star. She also has an extensive listing of other location and product reviews as well. Restaurant reviews are regularly used as references and external links at Wikipedia. Lastly, on the claim of notability, your unfamiliarity with that news service does not make it unnotable. It has itself been extensively covered (a simple google search verifies this), and it does in fact have an entry here (since June of 2006), which has survived contributed editing. I, probably more than anyone else editing this article, have tried to whittle down on commercial fluff in this and Nolan's entry (see the Talk page there as well). But this certainly does not fall under that. I'd be willing to compromise and move it to a reference with corresponding text (as several other restaurant entries at Wikipedia have done), but not a complete removal. --Marty Goldberg 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Associated content

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. This is the problem I have with the link. Stealthound (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just not right in this case. Self-published sources are allowed in this context (see WP:SELFPUB), and even then its not self-published - you'd need to prove that the person who wrote the article was uWink or the person who put the link here is the author of the article. Likewise you need to document that the link was actually put here by the author looking to advertise their article. Sites that include ad-revenue type payments in their internal architecture are not spam, and WP:Spam clearly defines what spam is and is not regarding articles themselves, or external links (which this reference link would loosely fall under). If the article being linked to was there for the sole purpose of advertising uWink or a service of the site, or was actually spammed across articles on Wikipedia, then I would certainly agree. But that is not the case here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Admin Noticeboard. I won't revert again, but I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. Stealthound (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just not right in this case. Self-published sources are allowed in this context (see WP:SELFPUB), and even then its not self-published - you'd need to prove that the person who wrote the article was uWink or the person who put the link here is the author of the article. Likewise you need to document that the link was actually put here by the author looking to advertise their article. Sites that include ad-revenue type payments in their internal architecture are not spam, and WP:Spam clearly defines what spam is and is not regarding articles themselves, or external links (which this reference link would loosely fall under). If the article being linked to was there for the sole purpose of advertising uWink or a service of the site, or was actually spammed across articles on Wikipedia, then I would certainly agree. But that is not the case here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not only WP:SPAM or WP:COI (which it is in most of the cases, but not always). The problems are that almost all the information on associatedcontent is failing core policies, and therefore the administrator consensus is that the site is going to be blacklisted. It is the same as with suite101.com and squidoo.com.

The information on the site may very well be good and OK, but there is no editorial overview over the information. So if the statement here "... has received mixed to favorable reviews" has to be referenced to this, then I say, this reference here is of zero value. What authority does Nicole Mohr have on restaurants (as do the other two references, one is to a gaming site, and one to a users review site!)? Can I put my statement on blogspot, and use that as a reference too? If there are no references to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then not only associatedcontent should go, also should the other two, and the sentence "... has received mixed to favorable reviews".

FYI, associatedcontent is going on the blacklist, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Associated_Content.2C_gettin.27_paid_to_spam (permanent link: [1]), due to these concerns. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is blacklisted (and I've been involved with that process before, so I'm familiar with it), or if consensus is for removing the link from here, I can wholeheartedly agree and abide by that. But so far (specific to the link on this entry), there has been no WP:COI or WP:SPAM demonstrated. I was going to suggest moving to an RFC so we can gain consensus one way or another. And please, there's no need to respond here and my talk page, I have this page (and any other page I regularly edit or watch) in my watchlist. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I refer to here, is that with the three sources on that statement that are there, there is still a total lack of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If there was one reliable source, then the statement could be turned to "has received mixed to favorable reviews by connaisseurs(reliable sources refs) and the public.(users review site)", but the associated content page, and the games review site do not show any verifyability, reliability and maybe relevance in this case. I am not saying that it is spam or coi in this case. That is the reason that three references should go. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku is a well established and well known site in the gaming industry, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "reliable source" or "verifiability" with that. I could see that with the yelp one as its a glorified forum, and the situation with associated was previously discussed. Both Kotaku's and Associated's articles contain actual reviews of the resteraunt by people who were there, and that is the relevance. And both contain positive and negative remarks, which I believe was the basis of the statement. So if anything, I could certainly see removing the yelp one, but I don't see (or agree) with removing the other two at this time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But all three are not a reliable source, they are opinions without editorial overview on sites which are not an authority on restaurants, they are either general self-published, a forum, or a gaming site. Those are not a reliable source on this subject. Associated content contains a review of someone who is there, how do you know, there is no editorial oversight, I could write a story there about that, I could even create an account on another name there. And the gaming site? If the gaming site tells you that aspirin is a toxic compound, you also believe that? No, sorry, but that statement is, IMHO, unreferenced, and apparently there are not even appropriate sources (of sites that have editorial oversight and are on the subject of restaurants, hotels, food) available. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's your opinion that all three are not (technically its two we're discussing now, I removed the forum looking one). Just as its my opinion they are. I'm sorry, there's nothing in reliable source or WP:Verify that's being violated here other than your opinion on how to interpret it. As far as Koataku, again, its a well respected site in the industry that regularly reports on the industry. I work with another well respected organization in the industry, and we reported on it as well. If a well respected gaming site reports on an individual legendary in the gaming industry opening a business that also leverages gaming as part of its attraction in its tabletop ordering system, and said site actually has someone review the location when it opens, that is called normal published coverage and a valid reference. They are not reporting on something unrelated, like "asprin being a toxic compound". I can't help it if you have disdain for using "gaming sites" as a reference. At this point I think its better off filing an RFC rather than going around in circles. I'm beginning that process now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no disdain about using "gaming sites" as a reference, but I believe that they should foremost be used as references as reviews for games. It is just that I think it lacks reviews to sites that are reliable in the subject. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are the Kotaku and Associated references valid in their use in this article

There is a disagreement as to whether the two reviews presented as references represent valid reviews for the subject, uWink media bistro (see the discussion section just above this). Please weigh in to help resolve this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Associated is out now, see Wikipedia:AN#Associated_Content.2C_gettin.27_paid_to_spam. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• No - I don't think Kotaku should be viewed as a reliable source for this purpose. The author of the "review" is identified only as "Matthew", a "Kotaku reader"! There's nothing that suggests to me that Kotaku (or the editor identified with this piece, Brian Ashcroft) has any authority or credibility in reviewing restaurants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can possibly understand about the reader part. However, not with the Kotaku credibility - the problem is this isn't just a restaurant, but a "media bistro", and uWink heavily cross markets and pr's within the video game industry and media playing off Nolan's position in that industry. If it was purely just a restaurant and pursued as such, I could certainly see your point. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - and I see that the review doesn't exactly focus on the cuisine. So we're left with the fact that the author is "Matthew"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the author being "Matthew", what if we contact the editors of Kotaku to find out what the editorial oversight process is? So far, its just been assumed (claimed) there is none. However, there is a paid managing staff of 8 editors and nobody can just "post" an article, it has to be submitted - in fact, the review was put there and introduced by the site's night editor, Brian Ashcraft. So its more than likely there is actually an editorial oversight process. The fact that the author that submitted the review was identified as a "reader" named "Matthew" should not discount it (a regular New York Times critic that submitted an article on their own time there would be identified as a "reader" as well), it should be lack of any editorial standards for the site that does. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would make a fine reference, if the sentence it attributes would specify a bit more. IMHO, it suggests that the review reviews the restaurant, while the review actually reviews broader, gaming, the place, and to a lesser extend, the food. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just changed it from uWink "restaurant" to "location", since that more accurately suggests the generality you're referring to. How else do you see it being rewritten? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good plan. An expansion that would be welcome is some more reviews (e.g. from specialised restaurant reviewers), if they are available. But this is fine, just let it evolve from here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed some of the wording through the rest of the article, and added another review by a food critic as requested. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that it appears to matter anymore, but here's the response I got back from Brian Crecente, chief editor at Kotaku: "We do have editorial oversight for all of our articles. I'm the managing editor and have 12 years experience working at major daily newspapers covering crime." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UWink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211013211/http://www.uwink.com:80/restaurants/locations/mvca/ to http://www.uwink.com/restaurants/locations/mvca

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)