Talk:Top Chef: Las Vegas

Discerning between Michael V. and Michael I.?
Can we possibly get someone to go back and update the article with the last initial of the Michaels?


 * Whoever is making these comments, please learn to sign your name with the four tildes (~) so we know who you are. Also, a ":" is used to create a tab effect, not a hypen.


 * As for the Michael/Mike situation, Michael is the brother (as listed above, Michael Voltaggio) and Mike is the one with no eyebrows (Mike Isabella). They go by Michael and Mike on the show, so we're referring to them that way on this page and the charts =).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly clear that way on the show and on the table. We can surely give our readers credit for that little bit of intelligence, for heaven's sake. Drmargi (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickfire Table
I just created it. I felt it would keep a more concise track of each episode's challenges than listing them in the episode summaries. Thoughts/Recommendations? I chose those colors, FYI, because they correlate with the Elimination table's.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I think it's completely unnecessary and makes the whole thing much harder to read.  The information about who's on top and who's on the bottom is already in the main text of the article, and the Quickfire results are far less important than the Elimination results, hence why that has its own table.  If anybody really cared enough, they could read the main text of the article and find it very easily.  I would revert it back. --fuzzy510 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now the main text has discarded the top and bottom from it because it's in the new chart =).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I don't think makes much sense at all, because it's a LOT more difficult to read the chart. It's also worth pointing out that the elimination challenge chart makes sense because that's the challenge at the heart of the show.  The Quickfire is a bonus challenge, essentially.  The chart puts a LOT more weight on it, I think.  --fuzzy510 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with fuzzy510. The table is chaotic, and almost unreadable. Moreover, it's really verging on fancruft. The Quickfire winner is interesting and has some meaning in that it sets immunity and/or results in a prize. The outcomes to individuals have no bearing on the final outcome, and as such are not sufficiently WP:NOTABLE to be included. The table needs to go in totality, and the previous practice of simply listing the quickfire winner in the episode summary be continued. Drmargi (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with fuzzy510 and Drmargi... the table is too complex and unnecessary. Keep it as the previous seasons have been. --CosmicTDI
 * Perhaps it can be simplified without the unnecessary "Lose" part and just have the top/bottom placers listed. But they are facts. It tracks the progress of each chef through each episode just like the Elimination Challenge and it's interesting in how often certain chefs land on the top or bottom, to compare and contrast. (I also don't see how it's that unreadable. It uses the same format of the Elimination table. If it's unreadable, you'd have to be colorblind. Or 7 months old.) Let's wait and hear more opinions before completely removing it, especially because it took hours to create and clean-up. But at least be open to some change and brainstorm ways to make it appealing to all, before banishing it altogether.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I recognize the hard work that went into the table, but that's the risk you take when you make an addition such as the table. Insulting my age and/or color vision won't get me behind it. "Interesting" is not a criterion for inclusion in an article, and it's not a collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE facts. That table is a compendium of WP:FANCRUFT and documents a series of non-WP:NOTABLE outcomes to chefs that have no connection to the ultimate determination of the Top Chef winner.  Moreover, its placement before the Elimination table gives it WP:UNDUE importance.  You've had no support for it and three editors weigh in, raising issues regarding readability, notability, organization, need for the table, consistency with previous seasons and more. The episode summaries already contain the relevant facts relating to the Quickfire: the winner and the outcome accruing from the win in (clearer) narrative form.  The Quickfire doesn't have enough impact to demand a table and too much variability to make one practical; that's why there's never been one.  If you can't provide a policy-based argument for inclusion, the table's days are numbered. Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I look at it, there are several arguments for it. For one, they clearly state the top 3 and bottom 3 every episode for a purpose to us as viewers. If it was only for the chefs, they would edit it out and merely name the winner (as done a couple times in the earliest seasons). Furthermore, there are certain Quickfire challenges which DO bear a significant impact, particularly this season. Episode 4's Bottom 3 are all notable. Hypothetically, if Ashley wins this season, it's important to note that had her dish been worse than Jesse's and Robin's, she would've been eliminated and the entire results of the rest of the season would've been completely different. This type of information is also useful to the people who read Wikipedia for the facts in order to write reports or recaps. An entertainment journalist whose writing up the show needs to know the top and bottom of both challenges for their articles. And that's where this information becomes crucial. It's all about records, and results of this nature are always essential.


 * I listed the table above the Elimination Challenge table because it's consistent with the respective results per episode.


 * In an effort to compromise, I think the table may be more readable if I remove the "LOSE" portions, which can be ascertained anyway from the Episode 1 summary. All that is truly essential is noting that Robin won a special gold chip and where the four Team Blue members placed. Perhaps without this clutter, simply seeing "WIN", "TOP", or "BOTTOM" will be more visually pleasant.


 * And as a matter of fact, it does correspond with other seasons now, haha....If you check the previous seasons, I also created ones for Seasons 3, 4, and 5--last night. Someone else took it upon themselves to do Season 2 at some point, which is great. Just need a Season 1 table and it's fully consistent.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't see the problem with having added those other tables, which I've reverted with the proviso they not be restored until we reach consensus here, you need to read up on tendentious editing. Adding those tables as an artificial means to counter an argument, and then taunting an editor with ha, ha! is hardly WP:CIVIL and very poor form.  You're walking a very fine line that can easily be crossed and thus create an edit war.  I left the extant table in place, but unless you can address the policy points made above with something more substantive than "if A wins, then we should know B" (to which I'd reply "why?") you've got no case for any table, abbreviated or otherwise.  The table adds nothing that isn't already addressed or can be addressed, in detail, in the episode summaries aside from non-notable detail.  Drmargi (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious. How did I add them as an artificial? I added them the same way I added this season's: a factual chart of progress. By artificial, do you mean I falsified it? Or are you insinuating that I added those after your deletion, which as I just stated, is false.


 * Once again, I reiterate: When I created this table, yesterday afternoon, I went back season by season and constructed the other tables during the course of the evening. Each of the facts listed on the tables are correct, so there's nothing artificial about it.


 * My "ha, ha" was not a taunt; it was an attempt at being friendly. Things don't need to be so stuffy. A little haha was just meant to break the ice. It actually shows poorly on your part that you are being so gruff about everything, and I resent your accusation that I was doing anything improper or uncordial.


 * So, would you like to try again?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to artificial has nothing to do with you fabricating anything, and has everything to do with the fact that the tables you added to conform to this season don't in any way, shape or form justify adding them here. It doesn't show evidence that the previous seasons were handled in the same format, it just shows that you've put in a lot of time adding cruft to other articles.


 * Unless someone other than Cinemaniac has a compelling reason to keep the tables, I'm tempted to revert the edits, because the general opinion seems to be that they're not worth keeping around. --fuzzy510 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the whole argument that "it's in the show, it's clearly of some value" doesn't hold water. Wikipedia isn't a place to list every last detail of every episode; on the contrary, we try and keep the summaries shorter and more concise without bogging them down with unnecessary plot details.  Besides, the information was already contained in the article, just in a different place and format. --fuzzy510 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me if you go ahead and revert. Cinemaniac seems to be unwilling to address the need for the tables using policy-based arguments, and in particular, to address the issues of indiscriminate detail, notability and fancruft raised previously.  His only arguments seem to be centered around finding an agreeable format on the assumption that the table will remain, while the rest of us continually attempt to address the larger issue of the need for any table at all.  He seems to feel that he's entitled to have the table remain because he worked hard on it, an argument I find singularly unconvincing, and persists in moving it around the article while a consensus discussion is underway, which is very poor form.
 * The few outcomes accruing from the Quickfire that are of importance to the eventual determination can be addressed in the episode summary. In a table such as the one presented, they're lost in a sea of minor detail and major fancruft.  The table is pointless, unnecessary and needs to go.  Drmargi (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus to remove the table. We need to re-add the Quickfire winners to the main table, though. Clconway (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if they must be reverted to the original method of listing the top and bottom only in the Episode summaries, it wouldn't be too tragic. Especially since I established that precedent in Season 4 anyway.


 * I propose that we at least give it 2 weeks (as in the next 2 episodes), so we can see if casual Wiki readers have any say. (I've found they usually drop by on the day of or after the show.) If they complain, then it's not just a stuffy and inflexible group of editors' dispute, but clearly a unanimous P.O.V. from all fronts.


 * P.S. I'm glad someone did something about the typo of "encyclopedic" in the "Please note:" section below. Oy.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I might have been willing to agree to that had you not, for the third time, embedded an insult in your comments. Your petulance in response to other editors' attempts to discuss this in reference to Wiki policy and claims of digs are actually humor just won't wash.  I'm unimpressed with the claims that the loss of a table would be tragic.  This discussion has been running since the last episode ran, and the casual editors you're waiting to hear from have already had an opportunity to weigh in.  I don't foresee any change if we let it hang around in a hail Mary attempt to rally support for a table that fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the purpose of gathering fancruft.  Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted them. If there had been any argument, even a crappy one, raised by somebody other than Cinemaniac to keep them, I'd have held off, but there's been no desire expressed by anybody that reverting is a bad idea.--fuzzy510 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done! I have yet to see a well-articulated argument for inclusion. What frustrates me is that I'm increasingly seeing the same "it's interesting" argument for including all manner of fancruft.  We'll have to keep an eye on S1-S5.  Cinemanic added the tables there, and an anon IP keeps reverting them.  I'm not keen on an edit war.  Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Robin's "win" in the Quickfire table in the first episode needs a footnote that she didn't actually win the Quickfire competition through cooking; she picked a gold chip and skipped the relay race altogether, and then elected not to trade her immunity in for a chance to compete for the top prize and the $15,000 in the Quickfire. While the episode synopsis describes what happened, if someone were to just look at the table as a reference, it looks like Robin was the top winner of the Quickfire and Jen was the second place winner in the Quickfire, especially since Jen has a footnote saying she didn't win immunity. In other words, for people giving the table a quick glance, it gives the impression that Robin had the best dish, when in fact she didn't even compete in the Quickfire competition. I understand that the table should be kept simple, but I think that there should be some note that Robin was not actually a winner by virtue of her cooking in that competition. (For example, after Mike I. got eliminated and was complaining how Robin kept coming in at the bottom, I looked at this page to see how many times Robin was low and saw the table and said, "what is he talking about, she won the first Quickfire." Then I read the episode synopsis and realize she didn't.  The table shouldn't give a misleading impression like that; there should be a footnote in the table itself for people who don't make it to the episode synopses.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.78.3 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reunion Special.
This constant altering of Episode 11 to the reunion special, and the chart omitting 11 and making the finale 15, is insane. The only reason that Season 3's chart does that is because that reunion special involved the ousted cast members from that particular season up until that time. This special did not include anybody from Season 6, so it doesn't count as a Season 6 episode. For another example, Will & Grace aired an overall recap of their eight seasons right before the finale. However, that's a bonus episode, just like this, and doesn't register in the final tally of episodes. On DVD, it is more likely to end up as a special featurette.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really very simple, and will keep your BP down: Bravo did not list it as a Season 6 episode, and Bravo advertised it with the phrase "Top Chef returns next week" after which they show the Ep. 11 preview with Nigella Lawson.  Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin 2nd runner-up?
Unlike previous seasons, the Judges clearly designated Kevin the 2nd runner up. Is there a reason we're not noting this in the table? Clconway (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No they didn't. They simply eliminated him first so they could play out the brothers drama.  That was no doubt a little last indulgence by the producers.  Padma simply said "Kevin you are not Top Chef."  She said NOTHING about second runner up. Designating him as such is entirely WP:POV and that gets your edit reverted.  Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode One: Quick Fire Challenge
Will whoever keeps changing the High Stakes Reward from Episode 1's Quickfire from $15,000 to $10,000 please stop. The first challenge reward was $15,000 not $10,000. I have the box set to prove it. Thanks. Revan46 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)