Talk:Top Chef: Chicago/Archive 1

Couple dynamics
It has been revealed that the first lesbian couple on Top Chef will be appearing this season. Amuse-Biatch.blogspot.com has figured out that it's Jennifer and Zoi. None of the press material has indicated whether their relationship is incidental, or if they will be competing as a team. If it's not a team effort, I don't see the point in trumpeting their relationship. Does anyone have any info on this? Is it noteworthy for the main entry?Thebookpolice (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way it came up in episode 1 was that they brought up the fact at the initial get-together, ostensibly just in the name of full disclosure for future reference. Lawikitejana (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thebookpolice used the magic word: It is about being noteworthy. If a husband and wife were both competing, or if a woman and her boyfriend were both competing, that would be noteworthy. We would not hesitate to mention that, for the first time in the show's history, a couple is in the competition at the same time. Why should this not be true for a same-sex couple? It is not about "trumpeting" a relationship; it should simply be about stating the facts.Roger (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, which is why I added it onto the page. It's not meant to be either homophobic or show favoritism towards them. Like you said, it's purely about the facts and it is a first on the show. But they are both individual competitors, as witnessed in the first episode (in both Quickfire and Elimination, one was in the top and the other in the bottom). I also included the poll conducted during the first broadcast, which should be included whenever one takes place. I just wanted to go on record as saying it was not intended for glorifying their relationship, but simply as a component to the entire program. One takes place on occasional episodes and it's worth mentioning, per episode. Does anyone think we should include on the page that it's a first for the show? Because the way in which my fact was edited makes that, well, awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have challenged that any of those relationships were noteworthy within the context of the show, but I don't disagree with your overall point that they're all equally noteworthy. Bear in mind, please, that I wrote that comment before Episode 1 aired, so I had no information at my disposal as to how the relationship would fit into the context of the show. So far, it seems mundane, and not a "look at what we can do on Bravo!" kind of attention-grabber. It was the potentially blatant ratings stunt quality that made me question its importance, not the type of relationship it is.Thebookpolice (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Jennifer and Zoi's relationship is a piece of information at least as relevant as their hometowns and what restaurant they work at. For one thing, there's a serious question as to the fairness of having a couple in the competition. Clconway (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * it's noteable to be included in the general information about the chefs but i don't think we need multiple mentions of it in different places. As for 'controversy' we'll have to wait until a notable source brings it up before referenceing it here.harlock_jds (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not included in multiple places, it's only included in the Contestants section. The mention in the Episode section was a Poll.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * at the time i made that comment it was mentioned multiple times. harlock_jds (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelos
The fact that Spike's real name is "Evangelos" is important enough to be mentioned in the article, but I wonder if it is important enough to change to change the contestant list. "Spike" puts his name down at the bottom of the list while "Evangelos" puts it near the top. It may be incredibly anal to even think about it, but it seems to me that since he is known as "Spike," he should be listed as "Spike." Maybe his real first name should become "Note 3"? Would that be too much? Just an idea. — Roger (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note #3 sounds like a good idea. I'll do just that. -- Cinemaniac86 —Preceding comment was added at 05:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seemed odd to make it a footnote so i included it in his name (but kept spike at the front).harlock_jds (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mid-show polls?
Someone's added the mid-show polls to this article. Given that 1) while the same poll is done in the first airings, it is a different tally of numbers between East Coast and West Coast, thus making it hard to necessarily reconcile the results and 2) this is only shown during the first airing of an episode, and thus is nearly impossible to verify, I strongly suggest we remove these since they have little impact on the show and that we cannot hope to provide them for past seasons as well. --M ASEM 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. Even without the verifiability issues, this level of detail is inappropriate for a WP article. Clconway (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's legitimate, especially since the question pertains to that one component of the show. Also, I applaud the person who was wise enough to add that the Yes was mistakenly circled by Bravo. Nice job, Wikieditor. Fail, Bravo, fail.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But again, it's not verifiable after the first showing of the episode (subsequent reshowings will show the challenges and winners/losers, but not that poll). That's the standard we need here, and while that poll is done for many other Bravo shows (Project Runway, etc.) no other show includes it; the only audience poll that does make it is the most popular contestant, which is documented in one of the reunion shows, for example.  --M ASEM  23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dish evaluation
I've noticed that, for the first time, the judges are eating the food and giving evaluation to the contestant's face for the Elimination challenge. Think this is worth noting? 24.46.141.214 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IN+-
The IN+, IN- and IN is just plain damn confusing, could really use a lot better wording Q  T C 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that difficult a concept. Your edit is actually the more confusing one. "HIGH" constitutes that they were ALL brought to the judges' table as their favorites and "LOW" implies they were all the least favorites, when neither is the case. This is also why I had the column in the first episode recap. Do not change this. I will try to explain it better if it's that difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

SHOW SPOILERS: DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU WANT TO KNOW
The preview for Episode 5 reveals that Antona wins the quickfire and Lisa wins the elimination --Simon Wright (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What the shit is the point of this??? And where did you get this from??James D. (Cinemaniac86) 08:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The information was written on the blackboard at the end of episode 4. I thought it was notable that the producers would let this slip by. --Simon Wright (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for snapping then, =P. That was a particularly good observation actually. Perhaps I could work it into the article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dish Contents....
Should we show the contents of all the dishes or stick to what we do now (my suggestion), which is simply stating the winning and losing dishes?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A description of the winning and losing dishes for each challenge is just right. I'm glad that someone else has started doing it automatically; I had been adding the details ex post facto for the past several episodes. Roger (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I spoke too soon. Not only were the dish contents NOT included for the most recent episode, but someone has gone back and 'edited' all the capital letters out of the dish descriptions of previous episodes. I find this astonishing. Someone made a conscious decision to make pointless changes to someone else's contribution instead of contributing something themselves. Whatever. I will continue to add dish descriptions to the episode summaries, and I will continue to Capitalize Each Word, just as they do on the show and on Bravo's web site.—Roger (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down. I changed the caps because, for the most part, the food items are not proper nouns (with the exception of some things like eggs Benedicts and tarte Tatin).  And it's not pointless, since steak au poivre works and Steak Au Poivre is a redlink.  Just because Bravo capitalizes each word doesn't mean that it's appropriate for this page.  They also often spell things wrong (halla, really?), but we shouldn't duplicate that, either.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Calm down." Okay, I didn't think one word in all caps merited the directive to "calm down," but allow me to retort.  While I concede that most of the food items are not proper nouns, I still contend that it is a stylistic choice which doesn't need to be changed.  The argument that certain entries are redlinked when capitalized also doesn't hold water for those who know how to nest links, like this: Steak Au Poivre.  See?  Lastly, thanks for reminding me that we shouldn't misspell words — good advice. — Roger (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:MOS and WP:MOSCAPS disagrees. And sure, we could redirect the links like that, but why bother? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "we", but if I write the description — redirected links and all — where is the "bother" for you or anyone else? Personally, when an entry is not incorrect, I leave it alone. — Roger (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody didn't . But more importantly, it is incorrect per WP:MOSCAPS, as I pointed out earlier. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixth to accomplish something
Is this sort of thing really necessary? And for how long. In a couple years, will we be noting that Chef X is the 13th chef to win two eliminations in a row, and then list all 12 of the previous times it occurred? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly recommend, as per same trivia at Survivor and Amazing Race, that such "aggregate information" that can be learned directly from looking at the results tables, even if one has to look crosseyed a bit at it, should be pulled from all seasons of the show. --M ASEM  22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * honestly that same trivia shouldn't on those pages. I don't see the point unless the show makes special mention of it in some wayharlock_jds (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wedding Wars.
Since Richard gave his win to Stephanie and the judges seem to accept that, I think BOTH should be listed as "WIN", each with a footnote. Thoughts?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 03:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew exactly when watching the show, that there was going to be an edit war. I even muttered it a little and my dad was like "WHAT?" But yeah. I totally agree with what you did, and think you did the right thing.  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  03:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you listen, Richard declines Stephanie's offer to split the prize. This might be trivial, but might be worth noting in the footnote. Marx0rx360a (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Someone else thought of it simultaneously, but I'm glad I wasn't alone in this, haha. And I'll listen again next time an encore is on (which should be every 23409278547 hours =P).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ALL BIOGRAPHICAL MATERIAL NEEDS CITATION
We CANNOT put people's supposed last names without citing a source. Sourcing for anything involving living persons is one of Wikipedia's most publicized and widely written about rules, and comes down from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself. Please read Biographies of living persons: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." – Jimmy Wales. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.254.108 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a gross misreading of policy. Certainly names of private individuals are protected, but by going on a reality cable television show, the full names of the contestants is not controversial or disputed information. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't know how anyone can say that it's OK to put in claims of any sort without proper citation, let alone people's supposed last names.


 * Tell me something: How do you know what the last names are? The information has to come from somewhere, unless someone's making it up. So if it comes from somewhere, cite it. The only reason not to is if the information is, "oh, I heard it on some blog" (disallowed by Wiki policy) or else it's original research, also disallowed. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They all say their names on the show. I don't understand what controversy you think exists here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lemme see here...Chunky Rice has a username. You're an IP address. Gee, I wonder who I'm gonna side with....

But in all objectivity, the fact that they STATE THEIR NAMES ON THE SHOW, plus various articles cite them as well, then there's no reason not to permit such a thing. God, American Idol never had this problem.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether we register or not has no bearing on Wikipedia rules. If they state their names on the show, give a date and a time. Otherwise, you have to WP:VERIFY with a published print or online source. Information about living people has to be throughly cited; this comes from Jimmy Wales himself. Please do not add uncited personal information, or we bring an admin in and this becomes a whole thing. Think of this: If you're so sure these last names are correct, then why can't you find citations, hmm? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut it out. They put their names on the screen in every single episode.  And cut it out with the admin threat.  I'm an admin. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have to say that whoever copied Nimma Osman's name off the screen got it wrong. According to Bravo's website at http://recipes.mt.bravotv.com/search/index.php?IncludeBlogs=1&search=nimma, it's Osman, not "Osmon." This is why it's important to have verifiability, because editors are only human and we need to check each other's work. Encyclopedias require the strictest level of research verifiability. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that's a typo that resulted from all of the removal and reinsertion of last names. It was fine this morning  before the edit warring. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chicago project
How does this relate at all to Chicago? I removed the category.


 * the show is set in Chicago. harlock_jds (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it be made clear in the lead section that this season was billed as "Top Chef: Chicago"? Seems like that is a common enough alternate title that it should be included somewhere. It's certainly used by many of the print sources. I would do it myself but I couldn't think of a way to word it, also, I cna't be bother to stop watching the current episode. :-P Stardust8212 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

stephanie
steph is the first chef in top chef history to acctully never be "in" she has either won been low or high in the challenge should this be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderman2351 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

High/Low/In footnotes
Looking at the chart, I feel that it's gotten a bit out of control with all of the footnotes and whatnot. I think that we should just mark everybody who got called out in front of the losers Judge's table as low with no footnotes, whether or not they were "safe" like Lisa was in the Wedding Challenge or Antonia and Zoe in the movie challenge. All of this just seems like OR/POV editing to make a contestant look better or worse. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ya i think that to but the only won that shouldent be changed is steph and rich they should keep t as a win Spiderman2351 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IN +/-.
Indicating this in the charts is essential to describing the episode. And I'll further describe it here, for anyone who takes issue.

In Episode 1, 8 chefs were named as winners of the Quickfire Challenge and 8 were losers. One winner was paired off with one loser, resulting in 8 teams modifying 8 classic dishes. Each went head-to-head with the judges; one was declared eligible for the win, while the other was declared eligible for elimination. So at this point, the chart would have been as follows: Andrew = IN (-) Antonia = IN (+) Dale = IN (+) Erik = IN (-) Jennifer = IN (-) Lisa = IN (+) Manuel = IN (-) Mark = IN (-) Nikki = IN (+) Nimma = IN (-) Richard = IN (+) Ryan = IN (-) Spike = IN (-) Stephanie = IN (+) Valerie = IN (+) Zoi = IN (+) Then, four favorites were chosen: Antonia, Nikki, Richard, and Stephanie. Stephanie won, the other three became "HIGH" on the chart. Following that, four least favorite chefs were called out: Erik, Mark, Nimma, and Ryan. Nimma was eliminated, while the other three became "LOW" on the chart.

In Episode 2, two of the five teams were chosen as the best and two as the worst (one wasn't called to the table at all). Some dishes were specifically called out as favorites/least favorites while some were not. But there's no way to accurately label +/- in this episode, as certain chefs could've been at fault for their teammates' poor decisions, despite having a dish which pleased the judges (see: Antonia, Dale).

The next episode is a bit trickier....

In Episode 3, the remaining 14 chefs were separated into two teams at their own discretion: Red and Blue. Neither team unanimously wowed the judges, but the Blue team won "by a margin", according to Padma. Nikki and Richard, despite being on the winning team, were scolded for their dishes. But since they were on the winning team, I've kept a "+" next to their "IN". Only certain dishes were called out as ones the judges loved (Stephanie's, since she was the winner, Antonia's, and "the whole dessert menu", implying Mark, who baked cookies).

Contrastly, the Red team lost, but not all were called out for having poor dishes. They're "IN" with a "-"...but three dishes specifically were noted as being failures: Ryan's, Zoi's, and the eliminated Erik's.

I hope that's comprehendable to everyone. If not, let's work together to find a system that fully stipulates these Elimination outcomes for the better of the Chart.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, I find the explanation you just gave nearly incomprehensible, but find the actual "IN (+) and IN (-)" to be pretty clear and an excellent addition to the table. Basically, IN (+) three in a row means that a person has been on the winning side of a challenge three times running without personally winning. Works for me. Lawikitejana (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot begin to comprehend this explanation. I can make it through about the first 1.5 paragraphs before giving up in exhaustion. :(  Sorry.  The only other thing I can say about the terminology is that if I have to flip to the discussion page to understand part of the article, that seems like a problem. Robb0995 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the great chart!
Thanks to whoever created the great chart! We've all been wanting something like that for every season. This chart is great and covers all the bases and permutations (except who were the other two in the top three of each quickfire, but thankfully that is listed elsewhere in the article) in a very clear and understandable and easily comprehended way. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I really appreciate that. I felt it was essential to indicate specifically the instances in each case. ^_^v.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha I posted the chart six weeks ago as a thread on the TC board on IMDB, and I can't tell you how many times I've used it to solve or bolster an argument. LOL It's the best. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I love the chart, but one thing I'd like to bring up: The Bravo Top Chef website lists that Stephanie only has two official Elimination Challenge wins, even though Richard decided to give the gift to her. 98.193.75.7 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even so, it should remain that way with our chart. That's why we have the footnote. But thanks for the notice!--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I still think the footnote should say she was given the prize, but not the win. On the episode recap of Restaurant Wars it says that Stephanie has now won 4 challenges, but Bravo says she's won three challenges, and in the interview with Richard Blais he even explains that he took the win, but Stephanie received the prize for Wedding Wars.  I'm not saying this to hate on anyone, because she is actually my favorite contestant, but she shouldn't be given credit for the win if she wasn't given the win. 98.193.75.7 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought I should mention. On the chart, for the fourth elimination challenge. Antonia and Zoi should have Low, not in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farewell world (talk • contribs) 05:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, that shouldn't be! They were supposed to be "LOW" with a footnote.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering, shouldn't Spike's during Restaurant wars have an 'In(-)'. His was the only dish that was well received during the judging. Also as the Front of the House, he did an excellent job. At that point he was considered out of the line of fire.

Trivial Or Not
Should it be noted in the article that this is the first time that 3 females are in the Final Four or that it is the first time females outnumber males in the Final Four? I personally think it is trivial and have reverted it twice. I appreciate others comments and positions on this issue :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's trivial; the show hasn't had enough of a history to establish that this is a key moment. If this is really brought forward by the show or other reliable sources, it can be mentioned, but really should be left off. --M ASEM  05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like any other statistics based trivia (First time contestant wins 3 elimination challengs out of 5, Fourth time a contestant places in the bottom 5 consecutive times), we should omit it. It doesn't really add anything that reviewing the charts wouldn't. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, to note it would smack of sexism and conspiracy theory. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dishes for Finale
If someone could put this dishes for each of the 4 courses in the Episode 14 - Puerto Rico Finale, Part 2 that would be appreciated. ScottAHudson (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.120.124 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)