Talk:Top Design

Premiere Date?
Premieres January 24th? According to the "Top Design" Bravo website, the show premieres on the 31st. Am I missing something? Should we change this? Agerard 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Change it, because I think you are right. I might be the one that put the wrong date, sorry. I will go ahead and change it.Tinkleheimer 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Premieres Tonight
I have already made a table, take away the comment tags to use it. I most likely will edit this myself and such, but if someone beats me, remove comment tags, and remove the tag on the top. Tinkleheimer 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Table
Does anyone know how to make table backgrounds all white instead of default grey?Tinkleheimer 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you asked this a while ago but... won't that be so bright? Babylon pride 00:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode descs
They seem really sparse for most of them, and far, FAR too long for 'Life's a Beach'. I don't have them on my TiVo anymore - anyone able to tighten those? Else I'll just fix them as they repeat. Thespian 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, I lost interest to recap the show after the second or third episode. That's why they tapered off...because I just didn't want to write them anymore. I hated that Carisa girl; I think that's why it stopped being fun for me. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Top design cast 01.jpg
Image:Top design cast 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons 1 and 2
Season One and Two each have their own articles. To include in this article detailed information that is found in those articles doesn't make sense. Either incorporate all the information into one article or leave them as they are. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should, at the very least, give a general overview of each season and link to them. It is typical for this type of article and makes direction to the sub-articles much simpler. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you check the wikilinks in this article you'll see there are links to the other seasons! Just because they are not blatantly obvious doesn't mean they're not there. And no, the purpose of this article is not to provide an overview of each season, it directs the reader to those articles, where all the details are available. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to what User:AdjustShift says re: this issue on his talk page, "Seasons 1 & 2 have their own articles, but some info about them should be mentioned in the Top Design article" and "The article should give brief introduction to seasons 1 and 2." There is info about them in this article, and I think what's there is more than a sufficient introduction to seasons 1 and 2. It tells us the premiere date, host, judges, and winner of Season 1, and the premiere date, host, and judges of Season 2. I don't think it's necessary to list the competitors and describe the competitions of the first and second seasons if all of that is covered in their own articles. Besides, if you read the version User 71.123.183.127 insists on reinstating, you'll see most of it is repetition of what is already stated in the beginning of the article. The opening of the sub-heading Season One copies verbatim the opening of the article. The opening of the sub-heading Season Two simply rephrases it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia article does not repeat its facts multiple times. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with 71.123.183.127. The Top Design article should have some general overview of each season and link to them. 209.247.22.166, your approach is not helping the encyclopedia. Please read Consensus. AdjustShift (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does have an overview of each season and does link to them, as I pointed out above as clearly as possible. My approach is keeping this article encyclopedic in nature, whereas yours is a mess. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, which agrees with User:67.79.157.50. Therefore, the consensus is two for the streamlined article and two for the version that repeats itself and is sloppily written. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Can you reasonably explain what a Wikipedia reader will gain by reading a list of Season 1 competitions, with no explanation of what they are, and a list of Season 2 contestants, with no explanation of who they are or what their challenges were? Can you justify how this is encyclopedic in nature? I have defended my position clearly and concisely and would appreciate it if one or both of you could do the same instead of just reverting the article. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It gives a quick overview of what's actually happened with season headers. With your truncation, there is no overview of each season and links to individual seasons in a way that is atypical for this genre.  The consensus thus far is not for this streamlining.  Furthermore, the only changes to this article which truncate the information are made by multi-user ip--specifically ones which have a history of getting in trouble for just this kind of behavior. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 71.123.183.127, your history shows you have made very few contributions to Wikipedia, and most of them have been limited to Top Design. I have made hundreds of edits and have never been "in trouble" for any of them. And with two people in favor of the streamlined version and two people against it, there really isn't a "consensus," is there? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait--so you are 209.247.22.166 as well? Because that's whose track record I referenced above. Because those are the only two people involved in the discussion on this page who are involved in this discussion who believe that the material in question should be removed.  If we are to include the people who have contributed the material that you've chosen to remove who are not involved in this discussion (which would be necessary if you'd like to include 67.79.157.50), then consensus most definitely lies with those who thought the material was important enough to remove.  You were asked to discuss this for consensus before removing the material.  Please stop removing the material until we either reach a satisfactory conclusion via discussion here or submit this through the proper channels of arbitration.  Summary material for the individual seasons should be included for this article as is typical for this kind of show.  If you believed the content for this show should be streamlined, consider condensing all pages about it to a single one rather than creating a atypically navigated placeholder for the show. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, since you never responded when you were asked above: Can you reasonably explain what a Wikipedia reader will gain by reading a list of Season 1 competitions, with no explanation of what they are, and a list of Season 2 contestants, with no explanation of who they are or what their challenges were? Can you justify how this is encyclopedic in nature? Thank you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the discussion at hand--per the beginning of this entire thing--is the inclusion of the summaries of the two seasons as is typical to this kind of page on wikipedia. It gives generalized information and links to the sub-articles in keeping with how they are handled on pages for competitive reality wiki pages thus increasing navigability.  I have simply not hindered the work of others by not removing what multiple people have now contributed to--the quick summary of events via contestants.  You may ask that this be fleshed out more, but your actions, more than anything, have reduced any opportunity to really work on this article.  You are alone in your opinion on this discussion page.  We have 2 to 1 consensus as mentioned above.  71.123.183.127 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus is 2 to 2, and has been all along, because I'm in favor of the short version. 209.247.22.166 has asked you some very good questions, and instead of answering them, you just ignore them and change the article back. That's not the way to discuss something. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, they were addressed. You have repeatedly been asked to leave the article untruncated until consensus has been reached.  71.123.183.127 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just updated the contestant and episode info, etc. without reading this discussion first. No offense taken if my edits are reversed, as I'm a little lost what the format should be.OwenSaunders (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 71.123.183.127, who are you to tell anyone to leave the article untruncated until consensus has been reached? How about if you leave the short version until consensus is reached instead, or at least until you answer the questions you've been asked? If you refuse to cooperate by participating in the discussion then you really don't have a right to edit the article, which it looks like is the only thing you do on Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In his or her edit summary, User:Aspects stated that episode and contestant lists are more appropiate for season articles and not the overall show article. This means the consensus is 3 to 2. Since there is no logical reason to have sections for Seasons 1 and 2 if the only information in them is a repetition of what is stated in the opening section of the article, they should be removed. Wikikpedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia article does not repeat itself. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly did mis-characterized my edit summary. I think the seasons need their own section but having an episode and/or contestants links are not appropriate for the overall show article.  If I thought that each season did not need its own section I would have deleted them outright.  I think the article with season sections is much easier for viewers to navigate to the individual season articles.  I had trouble finding the piped links to the individual seasons since most reality show Wikipedia articles use the individual season sections.  There needs to be more information about the basic format of an episode, see Shear Genius for an example of what I mean, but information should not be in both the lead and the season sections.  I would add this information, but I have never fully watched an episode. Aspects (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Consensus is 3 to 2.  However, as pointed out by Aspects above, the favor goes the opposite way of what you've stated.  You'll notice that I didn't undo Aspects' corrections.  That's because they are not deleting the season subsections in their entirety. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read what Aspects stated above: " information should not be in both the lead and the season sections". That's exactly what your version does! The only thing in the subsections is a reiteration of what's in the article's opening, and that's not encyclopedic in nature! 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only did I read what Aspects stated above, but I reverted the article back to their version. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very strange that the only contributions 71.123.183.127 has made to Wikipedia have been to this article. Please stop ignoring the comments made by people with more extensive histories than yours. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to contribute to other articles, but have had to focus my time on helping others to keep this developing article alive as opposed to keeping it stagnant as you have by truncating it to your personal preferences. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to the page including adding more information to the infobox, creating a format section about the basics of an episode and making a difference between the lead and the season sections. The format section may be wrong in some parts, so I would appreciate it if someone would look it over, but I believe we need something similar to each so readers know how an episode operates. Aspects (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Format section is a good addition. However, the separate sections for the individual seasons aren't necessary for all the reasons I stated above. They are referenced (and linked) in the opening, which is sufficient. Also, the infobox should not include airing dates and number of episodes, since this article is merely a general overview of the series. That data belongs in the articles for each season. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop taking out the individual seasons. As you mentioned above, the 3 to 2 consensus should hold sway in this matter.  This cannot be dismissed simply because it did not go your way.  Aspects has made it clear that they believe the individual seasons should have subsections in the main article.  Please do not remove this just for your personal preference. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made some excellent inroads to this article. Thank you for recognizing the importance of information about the individual seasons and further developing those.  71.123.183.127 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As an outsider, this discussion is it a bit hard to follow, partly because it seems somewhat heated at times and because it's harder to follow IPs rather than User names. Despite that, no one seems interested enough to actually update the individual episodes for this season.  Since I've been asked to weigh in on this discussion (as best I understand it), I think I would have left it as a combined article, and waited to see if it actually makes it past season two.  But if there are going to be separate articles for each season (which makes more sense if season two is continuously updated), I like the format for Dancing With the Stars (US), since that's been around long enough to establish a working format that continues to be followed.OwenSaunders (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are just two seasons, I do like the idea of combining the seasons and main article into one page as well. My main concern is the navigability of the information and keeping sub-sections alive long enough for people to actually fully develop content.  Combining information into a single page could accomplish both.  If others are not amenable to combining the seasons onto the main article show, I would like to see it develop as DWtS.  I like the compilation of material there as well as the season links.  It's not only easy to find information, but easy to find sub-pages.  I'd like to see people weigh-in on combining the pages versus leaving them separate as they are now and then continue to develop from there.  Thanks for coming aboard and offering helpful input. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 71.123.183.127 seems to have a vested interest in the program, since this is the only Wikipedia article he has edited. There never should have been separate articles for the individual seasons in the first place. There barely was a second season and Bravo has announced there will not be a third. I support combining everything into one article. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit summary "Per discussion" for this edit,, the discussion on here has been toward keeping the season sections. You stated earlier "Since there is no logical reason to have sections for Seasons 1 and 2 if the only information in them is a repetition of what is stated in the opening section of the article, they should be removed."  The edits I made changed the repetition between the opening section and the season sections, so that would no longer be a point of contention.  I would also like to see Bravo's announcement that there will not be a third season because I have not seen anything stating that. Aspects (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the work you've done thus far. I am hoping to grab some time during the marathon to make a more substantive contribution myself rather than just trying to keep the article in a developable state so that the on-going contributions of others aren't lost.  I've tried to find any mention by Bravo that this series is canceled.  So far, I've come up with nothing.  The number of episodes in the second season of Top Design is consistent with the typical range of episode numbers for a Bravo competitive reality show.  Again, thank you for your contributions and dedication to keep this a developing article. 71.123.183.127 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree all three articles should be combined into one. This topic is a good example of too much coverasge for a subject that doesn't warrant it. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one objected to the merging of the season articles into the series article, I went bold and merged them together. Someone with more experience watching the show needs to cut down the episode summaries for season one and add some episode summaries for season two. Aspects (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! Thank you for putting this discussion to rest. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Aspect's request, I condensed Season One synopses. The summaries of the later episodes in Series Two were copied from the website, so I removed them and replace them with non-copyvio material. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)