Talk:Top Chef: Miami/Archive 1

Archive 1

More dish information

It would be good if this time around, we could include a little information for each episode as to what the winning dish actually was and any conflicts that are reported in published, reliable sources. I don't want us turning WP into a fan site, but at the same time, I've found past seasons' articles to be fairly uninformative beyond a simple "who won, who lost" type summary. Lawikitejana 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Background stories to watch for

We can't use most blogs or message boards as reliable sources — chief exception being well-known blogs of famous people (but NOT the comments in response) — but it may be worthwhile to keep an eye out for any published sources that remark on the outcry from many fans who argued that "barbecue" was not defined clearly for the "Sunny Delights" episode. I'm seeing lots of argument in the comments on the Bravo blogs, to the effect of "here's what barbecue's official definition is, and none of the dishes meet that definition, so ..." and so forth. That could end up in citable sources, in which case it might be useful for the article. Lawikitejana 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at least one of the show staff's blogs identified that this really wasn't a true "barbecue" (Lee Ann's, maybe?), but even so, I would call this a footnote in that for purposes of time and setup, this was more "grilling" and not a classical "bbq". --Masem 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I'm talking more about the fact that many people are responding to the fact that the judges' justification for eliminating Birdsong was that she did not meet the "barbecue" part of "upscale barbecue." So I was simply saying we should watch to see if these complaints start surfacing in reliable sources. Lawikitejana 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What I've done is added a footnote at that point about this, and linked to Tom C's blog at Bravo TV and from the TWOP recap that notes the issues with the word. If you have any other reviews/critiques of this work from such sources, go ahead and add them in. But a footnote is exactly what this should be unless it turns into a major scandal (yea, right!) --Masem 14:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me — I wasn't even sure if the article should mention it yet at all, as there's always going to be people quibbling with the logic of the judges' choices over something. Lawikitejana 15:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading various discussions on it, it's not "important" but it is worth a footnote to note that the term was stretch from regional meanings for the purposes of a reference article on WP. That is, if I had not seen this show or read forums/articles about it, and just used WP to learn what they did, the barbecue page does not nail this down due to the vast differences. Adding the footnote makes the task very specific to grilling.--Masem 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't know how to fix the table but shouldn't lia and hung's places in the tabel be changed. it says that hung was eliminated in the latin food challenge and that lia was in the high part of the most recent episode.

Re: Consistency on origins

When you see "New York, New York," it almost always means "Manhattan, New York." Manhattan, the island itself, is one of the five boroughs, along with Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island.

So, contrary to appearances, "New York, New York" and "Brooklyn, New York" are actually two different places.

Roger 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Are there agreed upon times on when updates should be made such that entries are not considered 'spoilers', or does that not really matter? --Turketwh 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

After airing on east coast, please feel free to add details. WP doesn't run on tape delay. --Masem 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the people who are at risk from spoilers follow the show and know they can expect to see the information, so they're participants in their own "spoiling"; moreover, it's far enough down the page that you don't see it accidentally. (And, after all, Bravo posts the blog entries once the show has aired on the East Coast -- if anyone has a motive not to spoil, it's the network.) -- Lawikitejana 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Table Formatting

Please keep all contestants in alphabetical order, then in order from elimination. The way it looks now looks horrible. I am changing it to the above way again. Tinkleheimer 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in here to say that Tinkleheimer's approach is correct for nearly every other reality TV show when it is in progress; alpha order for remaining players, and eliminated players in reverse order. --Masem 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus about the order. In every other in-progress reality TV show I've helped edit, the default has been to put remaining players in alphabetical order to show no bias as to who is left. Exceptions have only been in The Amazing Race where there is a ranking for each team at the end of the show, and for Pirate Master, where there are three players that have power going into the next show. Even if in the past during the showing of Top Chef shows, the order of this table was kept in order of performance, I would argue that once the elimination challenge is over and a loser selected, no contestant is above any other contestant going into the next show, and thus they are all back on equal footing for the start of the next challenge, and thus the alphabetical order makes the most sense, both from a non-biased stand-point as well as maintainability (as you only have to cut&paste one row to the end to "eliminate" a player). --Masem 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it, but the table doesn't look quite right any more. There shouldn't be a column for the fifth episode yet, and the "Comments" portion seems to be in the wrong place.Roger 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Any need for the Elim/Quickfire sections

I know the other two TC seasons have them, but is there any reason why we need to have the Elimination and Quickfire "how many each chef has won" sections that comes after the Contestant listing? This information is even moreso readily apparent from the performance table and its weighting the page down both in the body and extending the TOC as such. I would suggest that if removing it here, it should also be removed on the other season pages. --Masem 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was considering proposing the same thing. It doesn't really add anything to the article, especially considering that we have that chart. -Chunky Rice 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else is saying anything, the S3 ones are going. If there's no major opposition, I'll ditch the S1 and S2 equivalents later today. --Masem 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Casey was LOW in Episode 4

Is she not colored in because she was safe? No, that's not right, because Brian is marked LOW in Episode 3. Fixing this. Clconway 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Sara M. LOW in Episode 3?

User Contributions/69.1.2.227 thinks so. I reverted these edits because they didn't use the proper formatting and I don't have verification if they're correct. Does anybody remember if Sara M. was LOW rather than IN in Episode 3? Clconway 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she was. [1]

Why the initial caps

For the list of recipe ingredients? I don't quite understand it, but didn't want to change it if there's some reason for it. -Chunky Rice 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason? Okay, I'm going to change it all to normal capitalization, then. -Chunky Rice 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I started adding the recipe ingredients, and I used the "initial caps" format because that is the way the dishes are listed on Bravo's web site. That was the only reason. Roger 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to pages of individual participants necessary?

While I don't know if this is true of all of the links, all of the ones that I clicked lead me back to the Top Chef Season 3 page. Is it really necessary to make all of those names into links if there aren't actually pages and the existent links essentially just refresh the page? It seems ridiculous to me. Womanhood 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't, and they should be removed. Only those chefs that may already have pages should be linked, even if it looks odd that only one or two have such. --Masem 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much! I went ahead and removed those links. It turns out that none of the chefs have articles on the site, so every one of the links just brought the user back to the Season 3 page. Weird. Womanhood 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many colors on the table

I think trying to represent both Quickfire and Elimination winners and losers through colors on the table is getting too out of hand; I'm not color-blind, but the table is becoming strongly dependent on the colors to understand the meaning.

My suggestion is to create an additional row and list the QF winner(s) in that, and then only show the results of the Elimination placements in the rest. This should bring the number of possible outcomes to "WIN" , "HIGH" , "LOW" , "OUT", "DQ", "QUIT" (well, not yet, but just in case), and "IN", which only needs 6 colors that can easily be represented. And yes, I would retroactivitely do S1 and S2 pages the same way. --Masem 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this last night and hoping someone with a longer tenure using reality tv wikis would weigh in on the subject. I agree wholeheartedly that the number of colors is already too much and if the current trend continues, even more colors--sadly--will be needed (for QF winner/High, QF winner/Out, QF winner/DQ, etc.).

I like your suggestion, Masem, and I'd take it one step further. I don't think that separate colors for "Quit" and "DQ" are necessary. Just keep it gray for "OUT"...there's already a text comment that tells how the person went (e.g. S2 Mia Quit: Holiday Spirit and Cliff Disqualified: Sense and Sensuality).

Personally, I'd prefer not to add a row for QF winner but maintain what seems to be the rationale for the S1 and S2 tables: let the yellow box identify the QF winner and let the text (LOW, HIGH, IN, or OUT) indicate the QF winner's fate in the Elimination Challenge. Unfortunately, though, that seems to cause confusion...

If I were king of the wiki, the table would have 6 colors:

• Yellow (QF winner. The text "HIGH", "LOW", "IN", or "OUT" indicates that individual's placement in the EC),
• Mediumorchid (winner of both QF and EC, which is rare but noteworthy)
• CornflowerBlue (non-QF winner who places HIGH in EC),
• Tomato (non-QF winner who places LOW in EC), and
• LimeGreen (non-QF winner who wins EC). A separate color for the series winner is extraneous...the name of the series winner is at the top of the table and they "WIN" (Green) the final IC...that seems crystal clear without needing a pink color,
• LightGrey (non-QF winner who is OUT).

But, Masem, I certainly prefer your suggestion of an additional row to the current ever-expanding parade of barely-distinguishable colors. JMHO. Puzzler28 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change to this season to see how it will fly. It looks fine to me.

Basically, at the end of the day, colors should help, but they should not be required for reading a table, which is why moving the QF winners out of the table, and then leaving the text in each cell that basically spells out the fate of each chef each weak is certainly sufficient; colors are a plus. Having the QF in the table creates too many possible situations that makes the text too hard to understand. --Masem 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It looked good! For the five minutes it lasted... ;-) Puzzler28 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just making a note here that we definitely want to avoid having color as the only way to determine the current result, as per WP:WAI; moving the QF winner to a separate line gives us that ability since each text result is then unique. --Masem 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why do we even have colors for DQ and Quit? I looked at the table for season 2 (in which both occurred), and even though they have those colors listed, they aren't even used. -Chunky Rice 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel we can cut that down to have "OUT", "DQ", and "QUIT" be the same color, since it's effectively the same result - the chef is no longer on the show. --Masem 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Team win? Is that really necessary? -Chunky Rice 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea who added it , but its gone now. It's definitely not necessary (teams are listed in the ep recaps below). --Masem 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE IT

in the first part of episode 9, Dale and Brian should be "LOW" because they were called in the bottom group(the basis of putting "LOW" on a contestant must happen if they WERE CALLED IN THE BOTTOM GROUP it doesn't matter if they are safe that week they are still "LOW" on that episode and somebody needs to change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.10.219 (talk • contribs)

The judges never told any contestant or team directly to them that they were the worst this week. That is immediately the basis that we have used in the past to indicate who is LOW. Even with Dale and Brian being called back, neither of them was told that their individual performance was bad (directly to them, despite what the chatter around the JTable was like). Assigning everyone as being "IN" is the most consistent action we can do, with footnotes indicating why this came about. --Masem 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should avoid speculation in the absence of clear evidence from the show. -Chunky Rice 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

TYPO?

I watched the first part of episode 9 and i saw something below Casey's name on her confessional, it says "sous chef" i thought the sous chef was CJ and Casey is the designer.(people before blatantly attacking me please watch the video again so that you can comprehend what I'm talking about) is this a typo or something?

The identification titles in the show typically refer to the contestant's job in real life... Although Casey's official bio lists her as "executive chef" at Shinsei in Dallas [2]). Clconway 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's brother?

Seems like an incredibly trivial fact. What does this information add to the article? -Chunky Rice 04:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As such, it doesn't ... it may have been mentioned partly because many people commenting on Bravo's TC blogs — and possibly in recaps at places like TWOP, I haven't checked — commented on this guest's bizarrely attention-getting behavior, while the typical non-famous guest on the show stays low profile; when he was identified by others after the show, people had an "Ah, that explains it" reaction. If there was some source that meets WP's standards that indicates that viewers were puzzled by a person most perceived as a nobody acting rudely, with no comment from others on the show, and that later there was buzz over the realization of who he was. We could also mention that unlike the usual celebrity appearance on the show, there was no on-screen identification.

At any rate, his appearance will be more relevant now that he appeared in Pt. II as the designer for both restaurants. Lawikitejana 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Fiddled with the mention a little to add a source to show it was notable; want to fiddle one tiny bit more once I have a good source for the fact that there were many people out there (a) complaining and (b) saying "what was up with that?" I know blogs generally don't count for WP, with some exceptions; does Amuse-Biatch qualify? I'll keep looking while I wait for an answer.Lawikitejana 04:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Barbecue and regionalism

Just a note about the editorial comment added about "barbecue/barbeque/BBQ". I realize that barbecue means vastly different things in the US as far as some southern states are concerned, but the editorial comment doesn't add to the quality of this article. If you wanted "exactness" then the contestants should have been forced to smoke meat on a frame in a pit of burning wood. 192.234.136.23 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know myself, I could care less what they called the challenge; the point of that footnote comment is that Tom C himself had to note to fans of the show via his blog that yes, they said barbecue but really should have been saying grilling. The footnote was not there as a biased point from a WP editor; that's just to say that the show called it BBQ and had to back off on that. --Masem 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian's Quickfire wins

It says on the Top Chef bios on bravotv.com that Brian has won 3 Quickfires. The chart only says two, and I don't remember him winning 3. Am I missing something or is this a typo?

http://www.bravotv.com/Top_Chef/cast/brian/index.php

I think you're right. Bravo may have mistakenly thought Brian was in the winning team for the quickfire in episode 10. 72.241.20.239 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode 9 "low" controversy

Maybe controversy is too strong a word. Regardless, even though I agree that we shouldn't mark them as low without a definitive say-so from the show, we also shouldn't mandate that they weren't low without a say-so from the show. I think that saying that Brian and Dale were absolutely positively not low for that challege is over-reaching. The bottom line is that we don't know if they were low or not. They may be and they may not be. -Chunky Rice 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The way to determine "low" is that that is whom Padma says "You x are the least favorites..." or "You x are the worst..."; that makes it a very easy distinction between how Dale and Brian were cited. I did add the footnote to say they were brought back as representatives for their teams but not stated as worse to help there. --Masem 01:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Winning both Quickfire AND Elimination Challenges: A Distinction?

The summary for Episode 13 notes that three people in the show's history have won both challenges in a single episode: Hung, Sara M., and Michael Midgley from Season 2. However, since Sara's Quickfire win in Episode 10 was part of a four-person team — rather than an individual effort — I wonder if it should be considered the same achievement as Hung's and Mike's. I didn't make the change, but I would like to know what opinions folks have, if any. — Roger 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who put this up, but I said Hung was the second person (after Mike) to do this. Someone else edited it. Sara won with 3 other people. Finishing in the top half can't really be considered a win in the way producing something superior to 7 others can. For simplicity's sake, I say we count a win as when a person is credited with one on the official Bravo site by playing solo or as part of a two-person group. I'm putting it to "second to win single-handedly" until we can all agree on something.

24.46.129.157 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that this really doesn't matter: this is a bit of trivia that can be determined by the reader by looking at the various TC pages. Stuff like this "historical trivia" is what leads to a lot of unnecessary information being added. The tables tell you that someone got a win in both challenges easily, and it can quickly be determined how many people, and under what conditions they got that win. --Masem 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)