Talk:Top Chef: All-Stars/Archive 1

Move
Based on my reading of the Bravo website, and the advertising of this show, this is a special series, like Just Desserts or Masters, not Season 8 of Top Chef. Using the (season 8) label is inaccurate, so the page was moved.Drmargi (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I don't really understand. It's listed as Season 8 on the Top Chef Bravo website. I don't think this is a brand new series, they're just bringing back past Top Chef competitors who deserve another shot at the title. It even says on the Bravo website "New Season!" If this was a special series, then why doesn't it have it's own separate web page, like Just Desserts or Masters? I don't think this move was necessary. - W ANINOKOZ  (T ALK ) 00:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Contestants section
I just have two concerns. Are we planning on posting hometown information and such again like we have done in the past? Also, is it completely necessary to post the contestants' previous placements? Does it really matter if someone came in second, third, or fourth place in their season? I think all we really need to know is which season they competed in. - W ANINOKOZ  (T ALK ) 23:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hometown information, etc. is needed -- readers can backtrack to their original season (if those are linked) to find that kind of information.  I had a long think about this, and I do think the placement is worth keeping.  Not all "All Stars" are created equal: there's a big difference between, say Blais, Angelo or Carla, who were runners up and really are all stars, and someone like Mike I or Spike, who are also-rans and the best of what the show could get from their season.  I think it's useful for the viewer to know that.  I do think, however, that the formatting needs to be simplified, which I'm off to fix.  Drmargi (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just gone back through, linked the first appearance of each season on the list of remaining contestants, and simplified the presentation of season and ranking data. It's much cleaner and easier to read now.  Drmargi (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have one concern and that is that it says who was eliminated under the contestants section. I was just looking to see who was competing, I haven't watched the first episode yet and now I already know who was eliminated. It already says who was eliminated underneath the episodes section, so maybe it doesn't need to be here as well? --Crazy4metallica (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll check prior seasons, you see this information is always provided. We don't withhold information to protect readers from spoilers per WP:SPOILER.  Perhaps the Bravo website would be safer if you don't want to find out the outcome of an episode.  Drmargi (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tiffani and Jamie
Tiffani should probably be placed higher on the elimination chart since she was brought back for the Gulf episode and not Jamie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.181.168 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Top chef 8 Inconsistent with past articles?
Hi! You reverted my update with the comment "Inconsistent with past articles", true since all contestants are past contestants the data is inconsistent, even your 'original' version is inconsistent with all the rest since it does not have age or home town. What I did was a nice way of being able to sort the data and bee able to see who was runner ups, how came from what season and so on. I thought that was better. As the text is now it is pretty hard to read and compare e.g. how many contestants are from season 3 and how are runner ups and so on. Can you consider reconsidering the update? --Stefan talk 04:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With a contestant moved to the list of eliminated chefs every week, a table will require constant maintenance, and is subject to a considerable risk of error. Why the fuss?  Why not just sort the list alphabetically by season?  That's much easier, matches up with the listing of eliminated chefs, and removes the problem of constant errors.  And it's consistent with the format of previous articles.  Drmargi (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My proposal was to have only one table and add the info on in which episode the contestant was eliminated so no issue to update. I'm fine sorting the text in a season order, I think that is better than the current format, but still think a table is even better. --Stefan talk 05:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Table for contestants easier to read?
See and the later reversal and discussion [above], any comments? --Stefan talk 06:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion now appears above, and has been removed from my talk page (I've edited the message above, which I hope the editor will forgive, since the link he put in is now dead).  As I indicated above, the table is far too complicated for the little additional information it provides, inconsistent with previous article formatting, and not really needed.  I suggested a compromise: that we sort the contestants alphabetically by season.  The links to past seasons were put in so that we did not have to duplicate already recorded information about hometowns, etc.  There's a big difference between the links and the updated information provided alongside the contestants' names and a complete reformatting of a section in a manner that differs from what's been done before.  What we've always done is simple, allows for ease of transfer of a name from the "active" contestant to eliminated contestant list.  Why overcomplicate things? Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving here is no issue, I should have started here but since talk pages sometimes are pretty dead I tried with your user page instead. Then later saw that there had been discussion here.
 * My point is that the table is 'better' or is 1) Easier to read 2) give the reader the choice to sort the way he wants to. The arguments to not have it is 1) to complicated (I have already done the implementation so that is not really a problem, and updating it is not harder than updating the list) it does give the sorting that I think is a very valuable feature. 2) Inconsistent with previous pages, true, but does it matter, the info is inconsistent anyway lets present the new info in a better way. 3) not needed, true, this page is not needed, wikipedia is not needed, but they are useful and so is a table, and it does not really hurt does it. --Stefan talk 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the table version better. But good luck getting it into the article if Drmargi doesn't like it. -- Nashville Monkey  talk  --  02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: your comment above: you may want to review WP:NPA.  Drmargi (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well aware of WP:NPA, stating an opinion based upon observation. You might want to review WP:NPA and explain what you are referring to. -- Nashville Monkey  talk  --  06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nashville Monkey, thanks for the support, but I will not redo that whole table again risking a revert war and wasted effort. I did it once. But it feels good that we have consensus. --Stefan talk 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Baby steps to get to a solution
Since no comment on talk page to clarify he stand from User:Drmargi that put the Dispute tag on the page. She have done edits since my last comment a few days ago I will UPDATE the page now. My reasoning (after TRYING to understand what Drmargis reasons for not showing Richard as winner in the table) is that since the table is for ALL shows, there is no reason not to use statements in other episodes, this is only describing the WHOLE season 8, and in season 8 it was clearly told that Richard won episode 15. Padmas comment was transmitted, it was not live and therefore it is part of the stand of all judges and the producers and the whole lot. If they disagreed with that Richard won the episode they could have cut out that part, but they did, it was sent, in the season and therefore this is what we should report as the full season progress. Please help me understand where, my reasoning fails. --Stefan talk 00:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After long time and still no discussion, I take the next step, since a general rule in wikipedia is that we write what is WP:Verifiable, not what we have seen or know, we should have references, for the point that Richard won the episode there is a weak reference, there is also a statement on the show (the next episode) by Padma, since the whole page is based on what we see on the show, we at least for now accept the fact that we actually interpret and writing our own WP:OR on the show, therefore we can use episodes as base for the page and there is no difference from episode 15 or 16, it is OK to state that Richard won 15 from what is shown in episode 16. --Stefan talk 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)