Talk:Top Chef: Las Vegas/Archive 1

More Trivia!
Now the Quickfire tables are gone a new editor has decided to load up the narrative with excess detail about the Quickfires and in some cases, the main competition. I've edited it way down, but I can easily see it coming right back. Some editors don't seem to recognize that this isn't a fan page or a collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information - that the outcomes are what counts.
 * I understand that some other editor has been making a mess. But was the removal of the Top/Bottom of the Quickfire **in the summaries** necessary? I'd like to readd that without creating an editing war. Clearly, my table was a mistake and I shouldn't have pushed so hard for it to create this drama on here. I apologize for that, and for being too sarcastic. But I established the precedent of listing the top/bottom placers of the Quickfire in the summary since Season 4, because as far as summaries go, it is certainly relevant to the episode. (I comprehend the difference between the summaries and the fancrufty chart, which was excessive.) And that procedure has been followed ever since, until I went too far making the chart. Drmargi, if I simply just list the top/bottom 3 without adding any excessive detail to the summary, will you abstain from reverting it? I'd like it if we could reach this happy compromise. Less is better than none.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I forgot to add that it is most essential to list it for Episode 4, since the Bottom 3 had to "cook for their life". And you stated previously that's the primary reason an Elimination Challenge table is significant, whereas the Quickfire is not. With that in mind, it's important to list the top/bottom for that particular challenge at least, and the rest for consistency. Thanks for "hearing"/reading me out.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)\
 * I agree with the inclusion of Top/Bottom designees in the episode recap (certainly for Episode 4). I don't agree with a description of every contestants Quickfire dish, as is currently the case for Episode 7. Clconway (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, actually. That wasn't part of my edit; I suspect it was from that IP address that is abundantly featured in the 'view history' tab. I think it is ONLY worth describing Kevin's "mood/texture/cuisine", as he won, and nobody else's. It was worse before though, as they actually had the erroneous "chef; mood/texture/cuisine; actual dish" label, describing the obvious. But yes, I second this going and glad you second keeping the top/bottom.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 23:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and eliminated the insignificant info from Ep.#7's Quickfire summary. I only left Kevin's.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 00:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I still have a "so-what" reaction to the high/low data, which is really just fancruft, even in text. Let's face it; that's just a cheap way of sneaking in the same data as was in the table. That level of detail still fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and as such isn't encyclopedic. The high/low in the Quickfire has no impact on the ultimate elimination decision. So, yes, it DID need to be removed, and with the exception of the double-elimination situation, still does. Drmargi (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the inclusion of the high/low data and don't agree that it is self-evidently WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking over the various season articles, it's clear that there's no real consensus on the level of detail appropriate for the episode recaps. There are episodes where every dish by every contestant is described in detail and episodes where only the winning dish is described. There are episodes that list the prize given to the Elimination winner and episodes that don't. There are episodes that cite the food budget for the Elimination Challenge and episodes that don't. Personally, I would take that QF high/low information over any of those details. Clconway (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me putting up the descriptive information on episode 7. This is the first time I have seen the Top Chef season 6 discussion page so I didn't quite understand what Wikipedia wanted and didn't want. I'm new at the discussion page so I'll try to check here more often for information regarding what should be posted on Top Chef (season 6). DragonofFire99 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Food Network played the Mario Batali vs. Richard Blais Iron Chef Battle today, and I thought one of Blais' sous chefs looked familiar. Then I realized, it's Eli from this season of Top Chef (or so I think). It has nothing really to do with the actual article, but I thought it was pretty cool.97.100.2.117 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was odious Eli. Drmargi (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Main Table
Edited the notes so they're less specific to each case, allowing for the reuse of notes and making it easier to figure out who had immunity with out having to read all the notes. They're also much more succinct. I meant to add a summary in my edit but forgot - apologies. --Jkua (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have reverted the removal of your edit. There's a mania for excess detail this season, particularly with regard to the Quickfire,  that is non-notable and adds nothing to the article.  All the detail you removed is already in the article, and duplicative clutter when included in the table.  Drmargi (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because I found it muddled. You also failed to add a superscript to Mike, who did NOT have immunity--a rarity at this point in the competition. I'll take a cue and fine-tune the overly wordy previous footnotes, but the understanding of Quickfires is "immunity unless otherwise noted".--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * M'kay, I have restored the more proper and concise superscripts, but followed Jkua's method of a more ambiguous footnote.


 * Take note, that the superscripts are chronological, so they work from left-to-right, not top-to-bottom.


 * Moreover, the main problems with your revision were the lack of a footnote for Mike's non-immunity; and the challenge where Mike, who worked on Michael's winning dish, was relocated to the bottom for his second dish. The previous description was too vague; the casual reader would wonder why he would just go from top to bottom without explanation. I reworded it, placing emphasis on Mike's failed second dish, though I still feel I need to work in the "partner on a winning dish factor"--but that might be excessive, and I was aiming to avoid using names in the footnotes.


 * Anyway, I hope this is satisfactory for all parties.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. It's still far too duplicative.  If it's in the narrative, it doesn't need to be in the table, and frankly, the notes are difficult to follow.  I'll take a stab at editing out the trivia and redundancies soon. Drmargi (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking them over, I realized that one (at least) was redundant: Kevin's first Quickfire win. Since on the column for Episode 4, it already says he's SAFE (which the key clearly stipulates means he's exempt from the challenge), that's one footnote that seems impertinent. So, that's a start to tidying-up that section.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added quickfire notes to ep. 1 (Jennifer) and ep. 8 (Eli) both of which did not receive immunity from their wins. I agree it probably makes more sense to have winning immunity be the default. --Jkua (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, good. And glad you agree. (I didn't remember that about Jennifer; I thought she received both. I'll have to double check another time.) This is usually the time of the season when Padma says from here on out, Quickfire winners will no longer be granted immunity. I don't remember that from Episode 8 though, so it could be this week's episode instead.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I cut some more trivia. We don't need the whole gold chip, etc. business explained for Robin - it's in the narrative already, and the note is too long winded.  Likewise, the business with Kevin selecting a cash prize.  Just add the note he did not have immunity.  (I changed receive to have, which is a tad broader).  I also removed the links to the wineries; links should be limited to articles as a rule, not external sites, and the overlinking to Pinot Noir. Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good; footnotes have satisfactory and succinct explanations, and now is basically, much less of a headache. I just wanted to mention that I expanded ever so slightly on Mike. Your footnote said "Placement based on a second, poorly regarded dish." The only problem is that was the case with Ashley in Episode 2 (her first dish was very well received), so it doesn't quite explain the situation. So I reworded it, but kept it very short and clear: "Originally placed on top; relocated to bottom based on a poorly regarded second dish." This way, it differentiates from Ashley's situation (because I guarantee somebody might try to make a footnote saying Ashley's first dish was praised, but the second was criticized...and it's unnecessary, because she was on the bottom either way, unlike Mike).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the descriptor in the table that's the problem. My note fits the descriptor in place - yours doesn't.  If we want the note (and I think we can do without it in toto) we need a new descriptor, perhaps BOTH or SPLIT, or even HIGH/LOW to explain, then add the note that he was in the top for one and the bottom for another, which would make more sense. Otherwise, the note needs to address the second dish, which got him the low placement.  Frankly, I think it's all chaotic and the narrative covers it best.


 * Oops! Just looked and I see you removed it.  Good choice - the table is best lean and simple.  We can always refer the reader to the narrative if need be.  Drmargi (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup! Thanks, and I see what you're saying now. And per your edit summary, I agree. I did not notice that it was included in the summary, and since it is, it's mention in the table is redundant. The end result is that Mike admitted to barely working on the first dish with Michael (if I recall correctly, he prepped *some* of the meat, or something minor to that effect). But his second dish was 100% his own and they hated it, so that seemed to outweigh and possible high marks he had. Thus, LOW suits him perfectly. So the summary recap's mention will suffice, in that case.


 * On a side note, I'm really glad that we've found the right balance between the vague and superfluous clutter =).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 01:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we finally have. It's nice to be able to go head-to-head with someone whose interest is in the article, not his/her ego (don't get me started on that) and come out the other side with a much improved product.  Now go see the new hornet's nest I've stirred up.  Drmargi (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking ingredients
As I was going back through the article on an over-linking patrol, I noticed a fair degree of randomness to what ingredients are or aren't linked. I can see linking exotic ingredients (like the alcohol used in one of the cocktails in ep. 2) or ingredients that are essential to the outcomes (such as the spot prawns that did Ashley in) but the ordinary stuff seems to be linked at the whim of the editor - celery one place, cherries another, then four or five more comparably ordinary ingredients left unlinked. I'm a less-is-more linker, who prefers to give the reader a bit of credit for having some intelligence and the ability to run a search if need be. I'd like to see us agree on a standard for what's linked, say limiting links to the more unusual or pivotal ingredients, then let that determine what's linked and what's not so there's some sense to it. Drmargi (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been on the same page on this issue. I never understood why people felt the need to link "chicken" and "carrots"--4-year-olds know what those foods are. I second linking as few food items as possible; common, everyday ingredients that could be available at small-town grocery stores don't qualify; more unique dishes, such as "chicken mole negro" or "chateaubriand", are prime examples of what needs to be linked.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 01:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought I felt the earth move a few minutes ago, which isn't unusual in earthquake country. Now I know why.  I'll get to work on this one, then you check my work so we don't divide and make a mess -how about that?  Related: I added links to the two wineries' appellations to the P&P narrative.  They didn't identify Sanford's as Santa Rita Hills, but the trick is knowing how to suss out the label - each one is original, with a different flower from SB County on it.  I was able to see the label clearly, and it was a quick search on the site to find the correct appellation given they only released one 2007 PN.  It doesn't exactly stand up to the letter of reliable sourcing, I suppose, but I doubt anyone will quibble.  (I know this isn't a forum, I had to laugh at Eli going on about selecting the "big dog" wine.  Terlato was the poorest quality, by some distance, of all the wines offered to the contestants. Typical Eli.) Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, that sounds like an apt plan. I'm not a wine expert, but I trust you know what's what. As for the food, should we remove links to all common items, such as celery and mushrooms, now? After that, let's decide which items should be linked that aren't. I'm a foodie, but I haven't tried many things at this present time, so I'm approaching it from a perspective of a home-cooked aficionado. (Although duck and coq au vin are my favorite proteins, and I've grown bored with comfort meals.) I think that's the best POV to have when deciding what's linkable and what's not.


 * The one edit I'd like to fix is E.C. #1--I think the part about the judging process in that episode is notable. I'm going to word it more appropriately than it was previously, though.


 * And re: Eli, that figures =P. Can't stand his "badass" attitude; he's essentially a child playing with fire. We can continue this on one of our talk pages if you'd like though.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than working against each other, let me make the first pass through de-linking, then I'll leave a message here when it's ready for you to review. Then we can work on the linking issue.  So sit on your hands for a bit -- that will be your challenge!  Drmargi (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Challenge acccepted! In the meantime, I shall pop some aspirin to deal with a migraine (hence, I'm glad you're taking the initiative to delink) and watch the episodes of Modern Family and Glee that I missed last week.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope your head feels better. I get migraines, too, so I can commiserate. I took a pass through. It turned out to be easier to link and de-link at the same time, so I did. I was a bit ambiguous about a few, such as dandelion greens, so see what you think, and we can discuss from there. A few had to be linked to broader topics, of course, such as salsa verde to salsa, but they I checked to be sure they had the ingredient as a sub-topic. I think I finally found the first appearance of ceviche (this crew is ceviche-mad!) after several misses!! au Poivre doesn't have a link, just steak au poivre - what think you?
 * Thanks =). It did eventually. I eventually passed out, then woke up an hour later. Wooo. My apologies though for the immense delay in response; I have a pet peeve about half-assing replies, which only amplifies my procrastination. But I haven't a single disagreement about your linking and delinking, so it looks practically perfect in every way, Poppins. (Haha, I've realized all season how there's at least a ceviche every other week; some of these chefs love a good default dish.) There may be one or two I don't recognize, but so far, it looks sleekier without all that nonsensical linking. Also, let's chat further on our talk pages.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Aired -> First Aired
For each episode summary, "Aired" should be "First Aired". This is because the episodes air many, many times and the dates refer only to first time a specific episode is shown on television. --Crunch (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 10:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ampersands
I also purged the article of the lazy ampersand, which some editor loves. You might want to check to the sure the commas in serial entries are consistent; I don't use one after the item before and, but I know most editors do. There were one or two more things I forget, of course! Drmargi (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * & I agree to limit my use of the ampersand! ;) PhilDeCube (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a bit of a stickler about commas before and, which is how I was always taught in my grammar courses in English. The reason I support them is because without them, sometimes it appears as though the final two nouns, whatever/whomever they be, are a pair or couple. But it's probably the least offensive grammatical pet peeve that I can think of. However, I shall be careful about ampersands. I have a tendency to use them in my writing with names only (never common nouns), but indeed, they are not encyclopedic.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for deleting the overused ampersands! Regarding the serial comma, I'm not sure what Wikipedia's rule is on this and while I found the above page, it doesn't address Wikipedia's preferences. I prefer it.  --Crunch (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. I had forgotten it's specific terminology, actually, and the examples that article examines are really rather interesting on the many ways it can be interpreted. More fascinating, though, was the fact that it's also called an "Oxford Comma". NOW I know what that incredible Vampire Weekend song is ♥. Amazing! Thank you for that, haha. Sadly, the highlight of my pre-dawn hours.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 10:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael/Mike and Jennifer/Jen.
What do you believe is the proper way to address them on the chart and in the summaries?

I feel that, since on the show they distinguish themselves in this way (Michael and Mike) that referring to them that way on the page is perfectly legitimate...especially since their last names are listed in the Contestants section, thus clarifying which is which. (Jennifer vs. Jen is less of an issue, since Jen was the first one to go.) But it doesn't really matter to much either way.

How should we settle this issue, to prevent edit conflicts? Perhaps take a cue from the info box during their video diaries?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Use the initials of their last names. "Mike (or Michael) I." and "Michael V." Trying to keep track of who is Mike and who is Michael would be very difficult for a reader.    --Crunch (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Winnings
I know that the "prizes" won by the competitors are scattered throughout the article. I'm wondering if it makes some sense to coallesce these winnings into a single location - perhaps a table, or maybe listed in the "competitors" section? PhilDeCube (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I disagree. They're not scattered; they are confined into one section. The prizes are content of each particular episode and often relate to that particular challenge; removing them from episode summaries just doesn't warrant a need to "coalesce" (1 "L" ;D). Who wants to look at the chart, read the recap, AND reference a third section for prizes?--Too disjointed, and particularly erroneous in the competitors section.


 * However, perhaps since some Quickfire prizes this season have differed, would it be wise to create a bullet point for when there's a cash prize involved? It would make certain instances, such as this most recent episode where they forfeited their win with the intent to quadruple, a little more coherent. But it's not an issue for me. Just a thought.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are non-cash prizes involved. Kevin won a set of non-stick cookware in one EC. One of the Volt brothers won an opportunity to cook for a week in one of the guest chefs' kitchen for a week, and Kevin was invited to participate in Pigs & Pinot 2010. PhilDeCube (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's your point? I think you misinterpreted my messages. Reread the first paragraph, in which I am referring to your suggestion regarding the Elimination Challenge prizes. Then, in the second paragraph, I am discussing something completely different: Quickfire Challenge wins, aka the *occasional* cash prizes. I am saying that, like for Elimination Challenges, we should have bullet points for those wins so that we can tidy up the episode summaries even further.


 * You're referring to E.C. prize winnings, thus bringing us back to the highly fancrufty table proposal. I'm aware of all those prizes, and they are either listed or need to be listed. If my Quickfire chart idea didn't pan out, this will never happen.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 13:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of brand names
I've just reverted (again) the use of certain brand names from the article. The branded products are among the items on the show because they are made by companies that have paid for product-placement - it other words, advertising - on the show, but have no notability in and of themselves. Their identities are indiscriminate information, and add nothing to the readers' understanding of the challenge unless by chance a reader has eaten these particular products. Adding the names is another sort of trivial detail we've been plagued with this season. Along with the notability issue is a new Pandora's box we open: on a show as laden with ad placement as this one is, how do we determine which placed products belong in the article and which don't? We've never seen the need to mention their two biggest brands, GE and Glad; I can understand they cook without knowing they cook on a GE Monarch series range. So why name, and link to a parent company, an obscure snack food, particularly given the link tells us nothing new, and where a trip to the grocery store would be required to add meaning to the brand name? The same argument can be made for placement of the Macy's brand name. The Macy's Culinary Council is not a "feed-the-hungry" organization; it's a group of chefs that principally advertise and promote products sold by Macy's. All we need to know is that we have a gathered group of chefs to understand that particular challenge. Sorry -- we don't need this level of detail. Both details fail WP: NOTABLE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Drmargi (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only one so far I object to not noting is Episode 8's Quickfire. The reason being is that the Alexia organic snack foods were provided for them for use in that particular challenge. It wasn't that they were the snack foods stocked in the kitchen (if those exist in that kitchen)--the challenge was to create a dish that paired with that brand name snack food ONLY. Not Lays, Wise, Utz....I believe *only* in these instances where the food is relative to the product and failure to use that product leads to a failure of execution of the dish, it should be listed.


 * Glad and GE, I think should only be mentioned in the main article, or even less redundantly, the parent article of Top Chef--if absolutely necessary.


 * As for Macy's, the only reason it would've been necessary to list them would be if they cooked at a Macy's function, in which case name-dropping them is essential because it IS the challenge. However, they cooked at their own house--not even at the Top Chef kitchen--so therefore, it doesn't add anything to the article.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, a reminder that a request to discuss to consensus means reverts stop at the one made with the request I've reverted back to my edit made when I requested discussion, and I've added a more than adequate generic description of the snack foods.  The brand name has no intrinsic meaning to the non-viewer reader unless they eat the product; the more generic description makes clear what the chefs were to do and is accessible to all readers.  The brand-name simply is not needed (not to mention the laughable mention of this brand of junk food as organic, the biggest abuse of that label I can imagine.) Drmargi (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll remember to check talk pages first in the future, which was not the timeline of events in this matter. Also, that description is now improved.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't see this discussion and while I was editing the description to put everything in the same tense (present), I added a link back for Alexia. I think this is relevant and it seems counter productive to water down a description to somehow make it generic and accessible to all reader. I don't follow that logic at all. --Crunch (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very simple - we're here to describe what happened on the show in a way a reader who didn't see the episode can understand, not to further the product-placement on the show. You tell me they used Alexa snack foods.  I reply "huh?"  These are expensive, regionally available, new to the market, junk foods, and the brand name carries no intrinsic information as to what they are.  So we use what is encyclopedic, and that's a generic description, which is not watered down by any measure, but rather provides more information to the reader.  Moreover, the link-back simply furthers the product placement by connecting to the parent company, but tells the reader nothing of value.  I'm even having doubts about needing the winery names on the Pinots used in the episode, versus just having the regional appellations as locators for the wine, where a link-back provides additional information to the reader that will help them distinguish two very different bottles of wine.  Drmargi (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing the link to the brand of snack food is not providing any kind of "advertising" for Bravo. It's providing essential information about what happened on the episode. Please stop inserted your own biases into Wikipedia. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not our job to make an interpretation that they are expensive or junk food. In fact, it is significant that Top Chef uses to promote significant brand news. In other words, their use of product placement is part of the show. It's neither an afterthought nor an insignificant part, especially when used a core ingredient in a challenge. We may not like this or approve of it, but as an encyclopedia it is our job to document what happens. --Crunch (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oy vey, reasonable arguments from both sides...leaves me hungry for french toast. In the meantime though, Crunch, *please* make use of the colons on talk pages, to indent your paragraphs after the person you are replying to. (On a forum, this is called "nesting", and is much easier to follow, particularly to those late to the discussion.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what nesting is. I prefer not to engage in increasingly nested posts to avoid creating very narrow column widths that I find hard to read. You obviously have different preferences. I hope we can all get along. As far as I know there is no Wikipedia standard for nested levels of discussion posts, but if I'm missing it please let me know. --Crunch (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)