Talk:Top Chef: New York/Archive 1

New Hyde Park?
I was under the impression that it was Hyde Park, which is a completely different area than NHP. Can someone please double check? MrDiGeorge (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Eliminated in the contestant list?
Do we really need to separate the eliminated contestants in the contestant list? It's pretty clear from the progress table who has been eliminated. I propose that the contestant list remain an alphabetical list with everyone together. Perhaps the text for the eliminated contestants could be appended with something like ". Eliminated in episode 1." --Pete Wall (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the contestant list is fine just the way it is. Separating the names of eliminated contestants clearly delineates who is gone and who remains. An alphabetical list with both "in" and "out" chefs would force readers to scan the entire list for the information they want instead of seeing it at a glance. It ain't broke; don't fix it. -- Roger (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Expanded dish descriptions
It seems that someone has expanded the descriptions of the winning and losing dishes -- beyond the exact wording of the on-screen descriptions on the show. I don't feel the need to change them back, but I won't stop using the exact wording as it appears during the broadcast. -- Roger (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Violation
Someone added information about EPISODE 3 when it clearly haven't been shown on tv yet.


 * (WINNER) The chef won the series and was crowned Top Chef.
 * (WIN) The chef won that episode's Elimination Challenge.
 * (HIGH) The chef was selected as one of the top entries in the Elimination Challenge, but did not win.
 * (LOW) The chef was selected as one of the bottom entries in the Elimination Challenge, but was not eliminated.
 * (OUT) The chef lost that week's Elimination Challenge and was out of the competition.
 * (QF OUT) The chef scored the worst in the Quickfire Challenge and was eliminated.
 * (RUNNER-UP) Runner-Up of the season.
 * (IN) The chef neither won nor lost that week's Elimination Challenge. They also were not up to be eliminated.
 * IN (+) The chef won a pair or team challenge but was not chosen as one of the judges' favorites.
 * IN (-) The chef lost a pair or team challenge but was not selected as one of the judges' least favorites.

---

Someone has added information about the entire season, most of which has not been aired. Should this be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.95 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"OUT" Color
It seems as though that the person who added the "information" stated above also changed the color of "OUT" from light grey to violet. I really think that we should follow the trend of "color coding" from the past seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.24.46 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Last names
NOTE: When we add last names of the chef-testants, please provide a reliable-source citation and follow the policies at Biography of Living Persons. If the last name is mentioned on the show itself -- which it almost never is -- then say which episode so it can be verified as per Wikipedia rules. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming then that last names can be taken from other sources i.e. those used in previous versions of this page? If that's the case, then I'll add what last names were reported in the media. (Just figured I'd ask... I'm relatively new!) SupermanML (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Two of the three footnoted citations for the chefs' names do not include their last names. The third, Restaurant Finder, only includes eight of the chefs. Where did the other names come from? The show has not aired yet, and generally their last names are not revealed on air anyway.

Actually, if you read the page on "Eater", you'll see that they do have the last names.68.175.86.31 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's reality-show entries have gotten last names wrong in the past. We should not be putting living persons' last names unverifiaby. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * note the show itself (breaking with tradition) mentions many last names (if not all of them not positive on that as i only saw a few introductions but all the ones i saw gave their last name) harlock_jds (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Eugene's last name has been listed on the show many times now, so I have removed the "citation needed" tag. -- Roger (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just removed it again. The first ep listed full names and they have been used in ep's after that point. Before adding it again please explain whyharlock_jds (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"In-progress" Warning
Isn't it about time to remove this tag from the top of the page? It doesn't seem to apply anymore. -- Roger (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it applies since the show is still running and may at some point contain 'future' information (like where the finals are held). harlock_jds (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Contestant Progress
It seems someone has changed all the colors in the chart. As shown below. I think we should stick with the traditional color coding of past seasons instead of this, just as someone else said about a month ago. 68.175.86.31 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

-I completely agree. It becomes very confusing when the colors are inconsistant on the chart, let alone the not traditional colors.


 * Lauren was immediately eliminated by placing last in the Quickfire Challenge.
 * Team Sexy Pants was proclaimed the winning team on the show, but Verizon Wireless V CAST revealed that there were two individual winners: Radhika and Hosea.
 * Because all the chefs pitched in to help Radhika and Hosea when their food became spoiled, the judges decided not to eliminate anyone in this challenge.


 * (WINNER) The chef won the series and was crowned Top Chef.
 * (RUNNER-UP) Runner-Up of the season.


 * (WIN) The chef won that episode's Elimination Challenge.
 * (HIGH) The chef was selected as one of the top entries in the Elimination Challenge, but did not win.
 * (LOW) The chef was selected as one of the bottom entries in the Elimination Challenge, but was not eliminated.
 * (OUT) The chef lost that week's Elimination Challenge and was out of the competition.
 * (IN) The chef neither won nor lost that week's Elimination Challenge. They also were not up to be eliminated.
 * IN (+) The chef won a pair or team challenge but was not chosen as one of the judges' favorites.
 * IN (-) The chef lost a pair or team challenge but was not selected as one of the judges' least favorites.

Episode 6 elimination note
According to Lee Ann's top chef blog the reason no chef was sent home was because the malfunctioning refrigerator 'unleveled the playing field' and gave certain chefs a disadvantage other chefs did not have (and the decision to not send someone home was made before the actual event and judges table). Since this is a creditable first person 'offical' blog from the production staff of the show i think we should certainly include it, should we replace the current explanation with this one (since it seems to be the primary reason no one was sent home) or do we add it as a reason. I'm in favor of replacing the existing reasons with this one because the malfunctioning fridge was really the only reason no one was sent home. BTW here is the link to the blog (and in this case a blog is usable as a cite as the person is notable outside the blog itself, she is the culinary supervisor of the show) http://www.bravotv.com/Top_Chef/season/5/blogs/index.php?blog=lee_anne_wong&article=2008/12/step_it_up_and_cook#breadcrumbs harlock_jds (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons why no chef was sent home this episode, the same reasons listed in the article, were outlined by the show's head judge -- and that was done on air, not in a behind-the-scenes blog. While there is no such thing as too many facts, there is such a thing as an unnecessary detail. I think Lee Anne's information, while interesting, falls into that category. We should present the facts for these articles in the same way they were presented to us: As the viewers of a television show, not from behind the scenes. -- Roger (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it is not unusual to use other sources for show information other than what was shown on air as long as it is creditable and citeable which is certainly the case here. I do not think depending on the show editing (which is done for dramatic effect for the viewer and to protect the sponsors reputation) for the only source of about the show is a wise move. Also I think the fact that the choice not to send anyone home was made after the fridge failure and in no way related to the quality of food they cooked or that they helped each other out is hardly 'unnecessary detail'. harlock_jds (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When discussing a television show, the show itself must be acknowledged in at least some capacity; to completely dismiss it is irresponsible, as the show is the main source material being discussed here. Additionally, to change it to say that the decision was made before the prior challenge makes, at worst, an incorrect assumption that the contestants knew that before the challenge at that there wasn't a judge's table, and at best causes confusion.  Leave it as it is.  --fuzzy510 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving in the televised reason (since the ep itself is a cite) but i think the reason from Lee Ann's blog should also be added. There won't be any confusion if we clearly label the source for each 'reason'. And i'm not saying we should assume anything, the web site clearly states the decision was made after the refrigerator failed and before the actual event and judges table (as while not really important it also says the competitors did not know that no one would be sent home until told by Colicchio). But i guess the consensus is to add no outside the show references? harlock_jds (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Radhika or Jeff?
In Episode 5, should we list Radhika, Jeff, or both as "high"? Radhika was on the winning team, but was not complimented by the judges, while Jeff was complimented for his sorbet by the judges, but was on the team that clearly ranked second.

Also, should we include Melissa as "high" on Episode 3, as her sweet potatoes were complimented by Dave Grohl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.86.31 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

in ep 5 Radhika should not be listed as high unless we are going to list all members of both teams as high. Clearly the choice was between Jeff, Jamie, and Ariane so Jeff and Jamie would be listed as high. Or we completely drop this High ranking because it's open to too much opinion and we can't clearly cite it. if this is going to be a weekly edit war i surport the 2'nd option harlock_jds (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because Radhika was on the team of the winning dish, as a whole the entire team pleased the judges. Therefore, Radhika should also be considered high.


 * Also, I agree that because Grohl had praised Melissa's sweet potatoes, her dish can be considered "HIGH". I've been lazy, but as per my discussion above with Spiderman, I'm going to figure out a specific color scheme for this episode, where there will be a "Team Winner" color (because the Bravo website says they all won); then, a special "High" color for Fabio and Melissa; and finally, a special individual "Win" color for Radhika and Hosea. This was only an option made to placate the war above. If it is not necessary, then it can certainly remain as it is. The new colors might cause too much confusion anyway. I blame the producers for not having a more black and white top and bottom =P.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * praise for dishes that do not end up being considered 'high' happens in all ep's I don't see why this is a special case.harlock_jds (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Little India?
Ok so it seems that Bravo messed up the name of the neighborhood that the people cooking Indian went to. They called it 'Little India' but the name of the area is called 'Curry Hill' (little India being the name of an area in Jersey City).

To avoid confusion i removed the wiki link to 'Little India' because it went to a disabm page which didn't have any links to the area they went to (not original research because they mention they went to Manhattan none of the things listed on the disamb page is in Manhattan). Unfortunately i don't think i can make the link go to the Murray_Hill,_Manhattan article because that would be considered original research since the area (and the store they went to) isn't mentioned by name. harlock_jds (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They went to Kalustyans. The signage was clearly visible in the broadcast. You can verify it with Google Street View. Clconway (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you don't have to take my word for it: Lee Anne's blog names both Curry Hill and Kalustyans. Clconway (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * using google street view would be considered OR and the general view of editors here (not one i agree with BTW) seems to be not to cite Lee Ann's blog when it contradicts the showharlock_jds (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Granted on Street View. As for Lee Ann's blog, I only see one editor expressing that view here. I'm going to open up a new section to discuss this. Clconway (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are BravoTv.com blogs reliable sources?
It seems that some editors feel we shouldn't cite the offical Bravo blogs as source for this article. I think this is clearly mistaken, the blogs of Lee Ann Wong, Tom, Padma, Gail, and Toby all represent official communications from the show's production team, which often include significant details (e.g., the names and locations of stores visited by contestants) that are not made explicit in the show as aired. This is an encyclopedia, not a television transcription service. Insofar as the official blogs provide factual information which is relevant to the article, I think they ought to be used as sources. Let's try to reach a consensus on this, so as to avoid future edit wars. Clconway (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% I know people have said that there may be 'confusion' when the blog disagrees with what is aired (for example the fridge breakdown ep) But we are to present as much information as can be reliably cited which may at times include contradictory info. It's up to the reader to sort out any 'confusion' not up to us to prevent confusion by editing what we include. harlock_jds (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode 8: Team Pig LOW or IN(-)?
The judges clearly said that (1) both Team Pig and Team Lamb had performed poorly, but (2) Team Lamb was the losing team. I wonder if Team Pig shouldn't be coded as IN(-) instead of LOW? Clconway (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Although both teams were in the bottom, Team Pork was clearly in a better position, so I agree. 68.175.86.31 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability for Winning 2 Challenges in a Row
I have just noticed that someone added notes about Ariane and Jamie winning two challenges in a row. Personally, I don't think this is necessary, as it isn't really notable if someone is the seventh or eighth person to accomplish something. Plus, if we keep doing this, in future seasons, we might say, "Contestant X was the fifteenth person to win two challenges in a row, behind..." 68.175.86.31 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed i've removed it in the past and will continue to do so. It happens at least 2 times a season which is hardly notable.harlock_jds (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * so do people want this included or not? I'm not going to edit war over it if others feel it is notable (it seems silly to me since it's not really a rare happening in the show)harlock_jds (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be removed. This argument has been made in previous seasons, always with the same result. Clconway (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who did add it in the early seasons (1-3) but I stopped at the 5th person then someone came in a did the rest. I thought it was not needed in seasons 4 or 5 but I guess someone thinks it is.--Spiderman2351 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Spiderman2351

"cheftestant"?
Seriously? Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but 'cheftestant' sounds like pure marketing drivel. We should be using either 'chef' (as they are all chefs), or 'contestant' (as they are all contestants on a game show). Thoughts? // roux   01:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is a cutesy term that gets used on blogs (including my own :-). It has no place in an encyclopedia. "Cheftestant" doesn't appear in previous season articles. We've always used "contestant." Clconway (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode 6 EC Dish List
I am announcing my intention to revert the list of Elimination Challenge dishes from the numerical list to the original list. The original version tells the order in which the knives were drawn. The numerical list tells the order of numbers from one to 12. It seems clear to me that the original version imparts more useful information than the other. Please do not change it back. Thank you. -- Roger (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Someone just did change it back. I'm guessing it was the person who also made the change in the contestant list. (Bigvinu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.86.31 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Episodes 1 and 10, and Contestant List
I have noticed that recently someone has changed the contestant list and the head to head match ups in Episodes 1 and 10, and made all three into tables. I do think Episode 10 needs more info in the match-ups, but everything else does not. Also, there is some strange "lead" classification in the contestant list (which is wrong because past performance does not count in any challenge, including the finale.)

17 chefs appeared in Season 5. Names, ages and hometown as per Bravo. In elimination order, where applicable, followed by alphabetical order by first name, they are: - Contestant is in lead (in terms of Elimination and Quickfire Challenges)

- Contestant is still in competition

- Contestant has been eliminated

Also, most of this information is shown in the contestant progress, table, so this chart is not really necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.86.31 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just really stupid. Top Chef isn't judged by prior weeks' performance, to say that a player is in the "lead" would be completely misleading. 24.46.141.214 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This gives the false impression that Carla or Hosea is behind Stefan, when the truth is gthat Stefan could be eliminated on tonight's show with one bad performance.  Additionally, to do this requires that we give everyone on the winning team for the Thanksgiving episode the win, because Bravo credited everyone with the win there.  I'm going to revert it, since there's multiple comments against it here, and there was no discussion about it.  --fuzzy510 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Finale Pt. 1 Dish Desciptions
I was wondering if we should display all the dishes made in the Elimination Challenge of Finale Pt. 1. Typically, when many dishes have to be listed in the dish descriptions, such as in "Restaurant Wars", or "Down on the Farm", especially when the recap becomes too cluttered, an entire list is displayed. For Season 4's Finale Pt. 1 Challenge, which was very similar to this one, the dish descriptions were the way they are typically done, with only the winning and losing chefs' recipes displayed. However, this season the chefs were required to complete more dishes, and because 2 chefs were eliminated, already 2/3 of the dishes have been shown. Should we complete the list and add in Stefan and Hosea's dishes? Or should we keep it as it is now, with only the descriptions for the winner and losers? 68.175.86.31 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)