Talk:Project Runway season 8

Team Challenges....

We cannot and should not speculate whether Casanova/Peach were the top 2 or, more importantly, which losing team members were the bottom 3. The primary factor here is that the teams were called out as a whole, and thus it allowed for each of them to be vulnerable to be eliminated. We can't single out Ivy, especially because she was declared safe BEFORE Andy.

In contrast, all 6 winning team members were brought out, and could've theoretically won. The editors chose to narrow it down to Casanova and Peach, probably because, as Heidi stipulated, they were the "comeback" designers. We didn't hear the judges confer on everybody, or all 6 designers name who was their pick. There's just too much potential speculation and it's best to consider the winning teams as HIGH and losing teams as LOW. Casanova won, A.J. is out, and Gretchen was in the bottom 2.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the elimination chart should be to record actual finishes, not to speculate. There was no indication that Peach had a higher finish in Episode 5 than anyone else on her team. Casanova won and everyone else on the team was equal. --Crunch (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Top/Bottom.

It never made much sense to have a chart color for "Bottom 2" but not for "Top 2". The argument was "top 2 is for dramatic effect". Couldn't it be argued that the bottom 2 is for dramatic effect as well?

Ergo, as editors, it is not our position to assume one way or the other, but record events and facts as the show presents it to us. Thus, I added a color for a designer who is top 2-HIGH for consistency. I chose turquoise because it was bright and in contrast with the WIN and top 3-HIGH colors. I thought about switching it with the WINNER color of lightgreen, but I felt that blended too much with the lightblue....And limegreen, on the other hand, contrasted too much.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is getting too complicated. The call out table should be as simple as possible. There are high designers and there are low. The low has the bottom 2 which is clearly emphasized when Heidi says that one will be in and one will be out. With the top, however, they choose 3 pieces that they like and determine their favorite amongst the 3. There have been countless times where they didn't rank it in order from favorite to less of a favorite, but only picked their favorite. Just because they called someone safe before another doesn't mean that they liked the other garment more. I don't know, that's just my two cents. Cityofwonder (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but who's to say that they didn't think the person in the bottom 3 sent to safety wasn't worse than the person in the bottom 2? The chart isn't so much a ranking of garments, but a plotting of an episode's events. One could easily argue either the bottom 2 or the top 2 are done for dramatic effect. We don't have the judges scores. We can only go by the episode. For example:

In the Episode 3 challenge, Andy won. Gretchen and Valerie were on top. Valerie was dismissed, leaving Gretchen and Andy in contention for the win, even though we have no proof that Gretchen had a higher score than Valerie. Moreover, the designers have occasionally referred to people as being in the "top two", which allows room for assumption in the same way you assume that what Heidi says to the bottom 2 implicates they're the two lowest.

When Sarah, A.J., and Casanova were in the bottom group, A.J. was sent off first. But there's no specific proof that Casanova had a lower score. All we can assume for certain is that Sarah had the lowest. But, just like with the top group, based on the editing, we're lead to believe that it's between these two people left on the runway. Thus, inference works both ways here.

With the team challenge this past episode, the judges had the harshest words for Ivy's outfit. But she was sent to safety, before even Andy.

I think that if we want to differentiate between the LOW people, we should do it for the HIGH designers as well for consistency. It's either that or eradicate it altogether, but I dislike that because it feels like we're losing a fact about the episode, don't you think? Thanks for your input, by the way!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Challenges Progress Charts

There have been a lot of changes made to the Challenges progress chart and the Model elimination progress chart that are done incorrectly, leaving broken charts behind. If you don't know how to edit these tables, that's fine, but don't just walk away leaving the broken chart. Revert it back to a stable state. I've repaired both tables for the second time today, although, I'm not the content of the model table is correct. The formatting is solid, but lineup between the models and the designers may be off. --Crunch (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am EXTREMELY disappointed that someone came along and put SPOILERS in the chart. I came in to look to see the Challenges highs and lows to see how often one was in the bottom and suddenly was told who was advanced to fashion week! Are you kidding!?! With no spoiler warning?!? These notations should be removed IMMEDIATELY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notjudyskid (talk • contribs) 04:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of messing with the chart. Do not assume the information is correct until after an episode has aired. Someone filled in the chart for Episode 8 in advance of its airing and indicated that Valerie was eliminated. Obviously this did not happen. --Crunch (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This was the second week in a row that someone has come along and edited, prior to the show being over, that the winner was disqualified. Last week it said Mondo and this week Andy. Someone just thinks they are being funny. 216.73.231.18 (talk)jcar03 —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Model Chart for Episode 6

We've gone back and forth on how to display this, from N/A to including the designers' initials, even though the models weren't used. How about this for a compromise: keep the designers' initials but put them in a slightly grayed out color to help show that the models were not used in that episode? --Crunch (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

I have protected this page for 24 hours,to bring a pause in the extended edit war between Everard Proudfoot and anon editor 69.236.82.193. This is not an endorsement of one side or the other, and the version I protected was the most recent and without prejudice to any preceding one.

Could the two editors concerned, or anyone else interested in the article, please discuss the dispute here and reach a consensus with which to go forward?

If anyone else has unrelated changes they would like to make to this article before the protection expires, please follow the instructions on the top of the article page to make a protected edit request. Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not an edit war. The IP was adding names of people who were supposedly voted off in episodes which have not even aired yet. This was pure vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OTOH: I wouldn't mind semi-prot...Naraht (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been applied. Euryalus (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is outright vandalism. There have been numerous nuisance changes made to the article by IP users over the last few weeks that I have had to continually revert. Protection is welcome. --Crunch (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you jumping to conclusions about vandalism? These episodes were filmed long ago, the edits MAY BE CORRECT. Why assume otherwise? In this civil environment we usually ask for people to provide sources first. Perhaps all of the episodes are available somewhere, or maybe there are some interviews we do now know about, perhaps the person works for lifetime has a pile of documents to back their edits. It is ridiculous to assume vandalism when commenting about something that has occurred in the past. This is not the lifetime network encyclopedia, we should not censor because it "hasn't aired yet", kind of a biased point of view ... Freellama (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase - Most of wikipedia has no sources. Adding content without attributing it to a reputable source is cause for discussion, not edit war. It is not clear that these edits are incorrect, most cases of vandalism are clearly invalid edits, or at least highly controversial. The edits in question here are mere statements of fact that may or may not be true, just like most of Wikipedia. No need to rush to edit/judge. Freellama (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

— Freellama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reason this is vandalism. Is every change that you don't like vandalism? I am NOT new to wikipedia, I do understand the concept very well. I have rarely seen such blatant biased point of view as has occurred here. If you don't like an edit, lets discuss it. If the original poster cannot provide sources after being asked, then we can consider removing it. I see no reason to have an edit war when neither side has shown convincing proof that their version is more accurate than the other. You had better keep this article under tight wraps, I'm tempted to side with the original "vandalism" simply due to principle. I've seen no precedent on Wikipedia to censor edits so quickly without giving the original poster time to discuss it. Freellama (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I might as well practice what I can preach. Someone has edited the entry to indicate that the final finishing order is: April(1st), Gretchen(2nd), Mondo(3rd), Andy(4th/5yh), Christopher(4th/5th), Michael C(6th). Can anyone provide a source, interview, public evidence that this is true? If not then I guess the edits should be removed. If there is any evidence out there, please provide it. That is my 2 cents. Freellama (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism I am talking about is not necessarily about attempts to reveal results of episodes that have not aired. It is mostly edits that destroy the formatting of the Challenges tables -- with columns, cells and rows all askew. I have reverted these many times. Perhaps these are good faith editing attempts by users unfamiliar with how to edit a table, but surely then they'd know that they left the tables in a shambled state and revert their own changes? And since you are talking about posting the results of episodes that have not aired, I should point out that none of the edits that I have seen that have been made that posted advance results have been accurate. Here is an example from Episode 10, showing the wrong guest judge, the wrong winner, and someone being disqualified who actually won. This seems to be grounds enough to protect this article. --Crunch (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And again, we had this edit on October 5 speculating without proof that a contestant would be disqualified in Episode 11. No one was disqualified in the actual episode. This is more of the type of repeated IP-editor nonsense that is wreaking havoc with this article. --Crunch (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Winner or No Winner in Episode 12

There already seems to be a dispute about two things in Episode 12: 1) Was there a winner? That is, did Heidi declare Michael C. a winner? 2) Was it mentioned that the final four designers are going to Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week. I have the episode on my DVR and this is a transcript of Heidi's words:

(return from commercial at 1:21)

HEIDI: You made this all very difficult for us today. But unfortunately one of you will be out tonight. The remaining four of you will be creating your collections to show at Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week. But, only three of you will compete as finalists.

Michael, you have had some very high and very low points throughout the season. But today was a major high. We all loved your dress. It was a true show-stopper. It was effortless and sophisticated. And we could clearly see your inspiration. Congratulations, you're in. You'll be coming back to New York!

MICHAEL: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

HEIDI: You can leave the runway.

I don't see a reference to Michael, or anyone, being a winner, anywhere in there. She also makes the distinction that all four will showing collections at Fashion Week but only three will be competing there as finalists. I hope this settles the debate.--Crunch (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It get's tricky, though, because, if you refer to mylifetime here: http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/project-runway/season-8/scorecard it shows that Michael was considered a 'best 3,' although, no other designer has that designation. Furthermore, Gretchen was designated as having a 'worst three' design. Should the chart reflect this, or no? AISept8 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a lot of weight in that chart. It says Gretchen was "Worst 3" but there aren't three designers left to make up the "Worst 3" with her! It's her, April and ... who else? There were only five designers, but they have Gretchen listed as "Worst 3" and Michael as "Best 3." That's impossible. --Crunch (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rold you so

The IP vandal made up their edits, and yet I got attacked for reverting them. Good Faith is ridiculous when vandals get the upper hand. Sorry, you're just pathetic. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased against Gretchen

It seems that a fan that doesn't like Gretchen said that there was a lot of controversy about the decision. I don't think that that comment is relevant or true, as many fashion experts who saw the show preferred Gretchen's collection. I put three citation needed's in that section because I felt that somebody put that in as a personal opinion. 75.73.193.118 (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations added on the 20 September 2011‎. (Percy Centyle (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC))