Talk:Quaglino's

The article's title properly refers to the original Quaglino's, not to the new one.

In reading the article on Randolph Churchill I came upon this sentence:

Randolph, who had been lucky not to be named in court as one of her lovers, also comforted a tearful Tilly Losch in public at Quaglino's after her divorce in 1934, to the amusement of the other diners and the waiters.

Naturally I was curious to know why the fact that RC had comforted TL in Quaglino's was significant; and since his comforting her occurred, presumably, in 1934, you can imagine my confusion when in the first paragraph of the article on Qualgino's I read:

Quaglino's, nicknamed Quag's, is a restaurant at 16 Bury Street, St James's, London owned by D&D London and originally opened by Terence Conran in 1993.

Since most of the article concerns the original Quaglino's, and it is only because the original Qualgino's was so famous that Conran decided to revive the name—rather than call his restaurant "Conran's," and try to make the name famous, as Quaglino did his—and since nothing is said in the article to indicate that the current Qualgino's even has a single Michelin star, let alone that it receives the patronage of illustrious or celebrated persons, it is absolutely outrageous that the present establishment, which has no connection whatever to the establishment that made the name famous, should be mentioned in the article's first paragraph. After all, only an opening paragraph about the original restaurant would be an honest and useful paragraph because only it would make clear immediately to anyone who, having seen the restaurant mentioned elsewhere in some context that made their first reasonable thought for more information the thought of turning to WP, wished to know why the restaurant was worthy of mention.

To drive the point home, however many places there are named Rome or Athens or Paris in the world, none of them deserves to be the default subject of the default article to which a entry of the name in the SE or click on a link directs one, or the first denotation mentioned.

Hence the first paragraph should read:

Qualgino's was a restaurant high popular, from the 1930s through the 1950s, with the British establishment and was a haunt of London's café society. Founded by Giovanni Quaglino in 1929, in the 1960s, as it was sold to a succession of hotel companies, its reputation faded; eventually it closed in 1977.

Nothing should be said about the new Q's until the last section. I intend to implement these changes. Wordwright (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the old Quaglino's is more notable than the new one, and I agree about your restored first paragraph.

However, the new Quaglino's should still be mentioned in the lead.

As a general rule, there is a polite fiction on Wikipedia that institutions have some sort of continuity, regardless of the radical changes that have happened over time, and even gaps in their history. Restaurants change hands, change address, and change chefs. Cities are conquered, razed, repopulated, and even renamed. Dances are re-choreographed. Hotel buildings are razed, and new hotels built on the same location with the same name, but under different ownership and management. Yet we often keep the different incarnations in the same article. All the incarnations should be mentioned in the lead, which summarizes the article. --Macrakis (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

PS Take a look at Le Grand Véfour, where there is a 42 year gap! --Macrakis (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishonest Insert Information

In the insert box at right of the opening paragraph one reads:

Restaurant information

Established 1929

Owner(s) D&D London

Street address 16 Bury Street

City London

Country England

Website quaglinos-restaurant.co.uk

The restaurant now called "Qualgino's" was not founded in 1929; since the restaurant that was founded in 1929 closed in 1977, the current restaurant has no substantive historical relation to the original.

Indeed, it is misleading for there even to be such an insert box—it should be moved next to the paragraph about the new restaurant, or the new restaurant should be given its own page, and a disambiguation page created so that it will be clear that the new restaurant has no spiritual connection with the original either, since in fact the British establishment no longer frequent it and if there is still such a thing as London café society, they no longer haunt it.

And after all, my God, can you imagine anyone in the 1930s talking about "sustainable menus"—whatever they are supposed to be—or raising an altar to crustaceans? If you're going to revive something in spirit, you must be true to the spirit. Wordwright (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is problematic, though I wouldn't use quite as hyperbolic language to describe it.

Re "sustainable menus", of course that wasn't talked about in the 1930s. But fashions change even if institutions have some sort of continuity. Le Grand Véfour in Paris had a very different menu when it opened in 1784 (under a different name!) than it does now. --Macrakis (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

PS The infobox field is "current owner", which may not be clear to all readers. Perhaps that needs to be clarified. --Macrakis (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)