Talk:Top Chef: D.C.

Winners Chart
'''Can someone confirm this? It looks like someone just randomized this entire chart and I highly doubt the elimination was alphabetical as this chart shows. The season hasn't even aired yet.'''

Well, obviously if the season hasn't aired yet, and the results were posted by a random IP with no reliable sources and the contestants SOMEHOW placed in alphabetical order, then it must be fake. No offense - just delete vandalism when you see it. WaninokoZ =3 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured as much. No offense taken. Revan46 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan46 (talk • contribs)

Correct title
The correct title for this season, according to Bravo, is Top Chef: DC, not Top Chef: Washington, D.C. I've been over the Bravo site thoroughly, and cannot find a single reference to it as other than TC: DC. I've made the changes, but can easily see an edit war erupting if editors don't take the time to check Bravo's site carefully, and thought a note here was in order. Drmargi (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode 1 Title
I'm not so certain that it IS called "House of Chef-presentatives," especially when the full episode listed in the video section on Bravo's site has it as "What's Your Consituency." Any thoughts? --fuzzy510 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, too. There was no full episode list at the time I made the change, just the House of... title; the only place I could find What's Your... was on the cable program guides.  I'm not going to fight a change back if the episode list on Bravo's site lists Whats' Your...  since the intent was always to be accurate.  Drmargi (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Episode 4 Winners
It makes no sense to list Kelly and Andrea as the "winners" of episode 4. They were the second-to-last team not to be eliminated, and thus came in third from the bottom. There are either no winners from Episode 4, or the two teams that won safety in the breakfast round should be declared joint winners (since they were the furthest from being eliminated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.118 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They were declared the winners because they had the best dish of the night, plain and simple. You can't argue with that.  The rest doesn't matter.  Drmargi (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think the anon makes a good point.  What does the Top Chef website say? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The episode says they won. End of story.  Drmargi (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Top Chef website is the authoritative source. Would have been very considerate if you had provided a direct link to the page where that information is found, for those of us who have never navigated around their website.  Just a thought.HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no need to provide a link to the website. The judges stated in the episode that the best dish of the night was that of Kelly and Andrea, and that they had won.  In which round they did so was not germane.  The editor above is attempting to re-interpret the outcomes to suit his/her own criteria, not those used by the judges, and that's neither accurate nor WP:NPOV.  Drmargi (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the most unusual argument for an edit, not to mention the edit itself, that I've ever seen on a progress chart. Let's not list winners who actually won the challenge?? And not only won the challenge, but both won rewards to Italy/Spain?! What a genius rebuking of explicit episode occurrences! Just had to mention how this produced a good chuckle; very oddly structured challenge though.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 05:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pea Puree
I just saw Episode 7 of Season 7 tonight. There have been countless blogs and even articles written about Alex's pea theft. I think this belongs in this article.HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no proof Alex stole the pea puree. Blogs and articles can do no more than speculate.  Your edit isn't accurate, nor is it funny.  Drmargi (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept your point, insofar as if it cannot be proven, it should therefore be reverted. But inaccuracy does not constitute vandalism.  I thought from what I was reading online that Alex's theft was something generally understood to be true.  I'll look some more, and if you're correct, I'll leave it as you have it.


 * But none of this will change the fact that you could have reverted this without calling me a vandal. I took the time to explain myself on this talk page.  Do vandals do that?  In over three years of editing I'm pretty sure that's the first time ** anyone has called me that.  My edits were in good faith, I am no vandal, and you, apparently, shoot from the hip without assuming good faith where it is warranted.*HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * *And if that is considered a "personal attack", let it be stated that with his failure to assume good faith by calling me a vandal, despite the fact that I provided an explanation for my edit on this page, that he attacked me first. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * **I was mistaken. In 2008 another editor did casually call me a vandal, but he had mistakenly attributed an edit to me that had not been done by me, and in the end, he acknowledged his error.HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the revert before I saw you had written on the talk page, but if you're an editor with three years' experience, you must know what the likelihood was that many editors who saw your judgmental and wholly inappropriate edit would have done the same as I did. Regardless of whether Alex made the puree or swiped it, you knowingly changed the name of the dish to one you knew was both incorrect and which reflected your judgment of Alex. Under no circumstance was your edit appropriate or constructive, and as such, the warning on your talk page was merited.  Assumption of good faith simply doesn't apply.


 * Your reading of blogs, etc. clearly did not include the Top Chef site itself, which in your own words is the definitive authority. The Top Chef site has not altered the name of the dish, and Tom Colicchio has made clear in his blog that they do not know whether the dish was stolen or not; moreover, given Alex had purchased peas as well, there is plenty of doubt as to whether he did, indeed, take the puree.  You must surely realize how manipulative the editing of reality television shows can be; Colicchio notes how irritated he and the other judges were that the producers neither made them aware of the issue, nor made footage available to them, or us, that would have resolved the ownership of the puree.  I could have thought a measure of common sense and a measure of restraint were in order before you made an edit you must have known couldn't stand.  Calling me names won't alter that.  Drmargi (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology to Drmargi
I came here ready to retort Drmargi's most recent comments, and I went to grab the dif on my edit to the page in question, and was shocked to see that, contrary to my memory of doing the edit, there was no edit summary by me. Usually when doing something that I think would be questioned by others, I'll include an edit summary promising comments on the talk page, or noting that such comments have already been posted (which of course is the smartest thing to do). Anyway, now that I see that there was no edit summary on my edit, I recognize that Drmargi was completely warranted in using an auto-anti-vandal program to revert me (thus resulting in the "vandalism" label), and I am embarrassed to have caused this whole row over something that was my fault.

Drmargi, I offer my sincere apologies. I was 100% wrong. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I 100% accept your apologies, with no hard feelings. We do impulsive things from time-to-time, all of us.  Such is life.  I just sorry I didn't see the talk page first.  Drmargi (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly for Episode 6
Should Kelly be shown as "SAFE" for episode 6, since she dined with both groups implying that she did not cook. Last season, Kevin was put as safe for episode 4, for not cooking, so I was wondering if that applies here as well. -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. I prefer the simpler use of IN, since the narrative covers there circumstances, but if you want to change it, I won't object.  Drmargi (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with SAFE, because it implies the contestant was exempt from that particular challenge. That was a change I implemented after Dale of season 3 was exempt from their Top 9 challenge, and it was also used for Kevin last season (which I've blocked from my memory, tyvm).--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Wars
Following the last seasons, should we put Alex as IN (+) instead of HIGH since the judges specifically said that his service was lousy? Similarily, should we put Kevin as IN (-) instead of LOW since Tom said his dish would not send him home? -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 03:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah. I would keep things simple in my opinion. Even though the judges thought Alex's service was bad, he was still technically up for the win. Same goes for Kevin; he made a good dish, but he was still up for elimination since he was on the losing team. Also, the Top Chef season 6 progress chart wasn't that specific. There was just HIGH, LOW, WIN, and OUT (Ep. 9). WaninokoZ (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are your opinions, not what the judges said. High and low were the distinctions they made; the comments about Kevin and to a lesser degree Alex were simply part of the deliberations.  HIGH/LOW v. IN/OUT never quite represent what really happens in any of the team challenges, particularly Restaurant Wars.Drmargi (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Tom specifically said that Kevin's dish would not be the one to send him home. WaninokoZ, what I meant was that seasons 5 and 4 have people with IN (+)/(-) for restaurant wars/wedding wars (Leah, Hosea, Radhika, Jeff for season 5 and Lisa, Andrew, and Spike for season 4). I was wondering if the same situation applied here since the judges made those two chefs very clear-cut. -- Dragonof Fire (龙火) 05:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tom said that, but it was his opinion during deliberations, not part of the final judgment endorsed by all the judges; likewise with Alex. It was different with the final judgments noted in the earlier competitions.  Drmargi (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'd like to apologize for making the chart edit without consulting this talk page first. I do not think Alex was up for the win under any circumstance. At Judges' Table, his service was chided by Frank Bruni, and when his dish was mentioned, the credit went to Angelo and Ed....However, this is borderline speculation, particularly because it doesn't fit the IN (+) criteria of being on the winning team but not being a favorite dish, since they didn't outright criticize the dish. As much as I loathe the TV version of Alex, this critique was not clear-cut. The only other mitigating factor was the other team throwing him under the bus, but once again, this had no bearing on his placement. He should remain listed as HIGH. (As far as we know, his little contributions might've been minutely essential to the team's win after all.)


 * On the flipside, I definitely think Judges' Table evidence explicates that Kevin should be listed as IN (-); although his team was the losing team, when Kevin was critiqued, his dish was only complimented at the table:


 * Frank: "The fish was nicely cooked."


 * Afterward, during the deliberations occurring between critiquing and eliminating:


 * Padma: "What [Kevin] did do was delicious."
 * Tom: "Right, I can't see sending him home for that dish."


 * Thus, he was not up for an actual elimination, but simply a good dish on a losing team, which fits the IN (-) criteria of being on the losing team but not having an unfavorable dish. This corresponds with (season 4) Lisa's cake being lauded, albeit as the only good aspect of the losing team.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)