Talk:The Taste

Colour
I'm posting here as the result of a request on my talk page but, as I've only just come online for the day, I haven't had a chance to look at it in any detail. The one suggestion I do have is for all involved parties to read WP:COLOR. The key at the top of the table makes it virtually impossible for any sight impaired person to follow the table. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That, along with the general clutter created by the key up top, makes the table very difficult to read; I've changed one identifier color to one with sufficient contrast, and removed unnecessary color over text. Moreover, and I hadn't considered this before, it also is so dense up top, a screen reader such as Jaws would be unable to read it.  That means it is not 508 compliant under US law. Separating the key from the team identifiers, as is done with the nearly identical table at Food Network Star (season 8) would bring it into compliance.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing no argument in opposition, I'm going to make the changes needed to make the article reader-friendly and 508 compliant. --Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed for names of the contestants
The show's official site only names the judges under the Bios section, and I can't find a list of the contestants names anywhere else on the site nor in any ABC press release at thefutoncritic.com. So where did these names and other biographical bits come from? These need to be footnoted and attributed to reliable sources--Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They were introduced on the show, with biographical details cited in the table. --Drmargi (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmargi is correct. All the details in the table were the ones displayed on-screen when each cook was introduced (name, age, occupation, and city/state). This is why none of that content has ever been disputed. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added cites. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Always great to see Wikipedians working together. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Colors in contestant table
Nearly every reality competition TV series uses a format similar to this, where there is a contestant table that indicates who's been eliminated, as well as a second table showing the actual episode-by-episode ratings/rankings. See Survivor: Caramoan, The Amazing Race 22, and Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 15). It actually does serve a purpose, since it's not immediately obvious from a table like the second one who's in and who's out. Samer (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This one aligns with comparable cooking competition shows, such as Top Chef, Next Iron Chef and Food Network Star. It's a short, small competition, and the article is already lacking any meaningful detail regarding the actual competition.  Another table is the last thing the article needs.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about adding another table. I'm talking about highlighting which people are still active and which aren't. Sometimes that's all people want to know. But, then again, the show will be over on Tuesday, so I'm not even going to bother arguing this with you any further. Samer (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Samer. Readers want to be able to look at the Finalists table and quickly see who's in and who's out. It's sad to see that Drmargi took it upon him/herself to revert this very helpful change just a couple minutes after posting here, with no consensus. It's also very puzzling that the reasons given in his/her edit summary were totally different than presented here. Therefore, since Drmargi is the only editor objecting to the change (and for inconsistent reasons), I have reverted back to Samer's version. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The point here and my edit summary don't have to align; I addressed Samer's points here. I reverted in response to another edit summary.  Regardless, the table is unnecessarily colored, and makes it difficult for screenreader and other devices. "Pick another color" isn't a choice.  This isn't a fan-site, it's an encyclopedia, and any use of color should be supported by text that can be read by a screen reader, per WP:COLOR.  The background color fails that guideline.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have zero editors who agree with you here. And your fansite argument is completely irrelevant; what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. If a better color was needed, then pick a different color. You give one set of reasons for your objection here, then give completely different reasons in your edit summary. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to read up on the demands of a screen-reader, what low vision people can/can't read, and what WP:COLOR says about use of color. My fansite argument is directly on point, whether you care to admit it or not, and my arguments are consistent.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to stop violating WP:OWN and stop reverting changes when you have no support for your position and there's a talk page discussion in progress. You say one thing here, then something totally different in your edit summary and claim it was because of another edit summary, even though you made the revert just minutes after you posted here. So your explanation makes no sense. And repeatedly ignoring the point that you could have simply changed the color isn't helping your cause or credibility. Do not unilaterally makes changes when no one supports what you want to do. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And what the hell does table color have to do with your fansite comment? And what the hell are you talking about with regard to "admitting" something? I don't know what your babbling about, but if you've had some type of issues elsewhere, don't bring them here because I don't see anyone talking about fansites, whatever that means. This issue was about readability, as the editor who started this thread alluded to. Next time, don't treat your lone opinion as if it's the law around here. We use consensus on Wikipedia, not Drmargi's law. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OMG, you're still pouting about earlier edits, aren't you? That's hilarious. You cannot edit against standing policy, WP:COLOR covers use of color, and the simply sounds like a broken record. --Drmargi (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "OMG"? Grow up. Now you're talking unintelligable nonsense about "earlier edits", whatever the hell that means. Everyone can clearly see from this discussion how full of crap you are. You spout one thing here, then something totally different in your edit summary. You're one of those editors who just throws everything against the wall and hopes something sticks. Look, get the message... do not make changes that other editors object to when you have no support. Do you see anyone in this thread that agrees with you? You need to get it straight that you do not own this article or any others. So don't act like the Lone Ranger and ignore others when you have zero support for your position. I suggest you educate yourself on the word consensus. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And before you cite a guideline such as WP:COLOR, I suggest your read it yourself. Multiple editors told you to feel free to change to an appropriate color for those with sight issues. But apparently, you enjoy ignoring other editors being very reasonable and giving you easy options to solve a minor issue. As WP:COLOR tells us, "Colors are most commonly found in Wikipedia articles within templates and tables". Now grow up and learn to work with editors, instead of fighting with them when you have no one supporting you. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)