Talk:Hell's Kitchen (American TV series)

Prizes

It appears that there are many rumours flying around ye olde interweb that none of the winners ever get the actual prize promised (or if they do only for a short time) - anyone have any details or actual facts on the subject? See, inter alia, http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/607747, 99.240.139.189 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell it looks like most of the winners have declined a prize or have left after a period (1 year seems to be the case). I wouldn't say it was Ramsay or Fox taking the rug out from the winner, but the reluctance of not working directly with Ramsay that causes them to step down Hasteur (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tone of the Show

"Hell's Kitchen" is one of those shows which are all too common, where every other word is "ass" or "pissed." The rest of the language has to be bleeped. So the producers assume that their audience wants to hear such crude language or is too stupid to notice. This sort of lowest common denominator programming is all too common these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Validation

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August:41pm. WikiCheck 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this statement mean? Also, octopuses 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramsay shoved someone?

No mention of this incident - [1] -which contestant was it? Jooler 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't see anything on the show about it. There was an issue on the final episode when one of the "contestants" had to go get stitches after cutting himself, but other than that I don't have any information. SpikeJones 21:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently, there was something during the next episode's previews that said that Jeff left because of an Injury [[2]] – I myself didn't see the notice. --TheBoompsy 22:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC
• Perhaps this is a bit speculative, but indeed, at the end of the "next episode preview" of Episode three of Hells Kitchen (season 1) it says, quote, "Jeff Lapoff decided to leave the show due to an injury." Along with this, it is known that one member of the Hells Kitchen contestants did indeed sustain an ankle injury for reasons that are sketchy (see here) apparently the person sued. this is of course never depicted in the show, and we are also never informed during the actual show that Jeff was injured; we are left with the impression that he simply walked out. Could it be that Ramsay injured Jeff and we never saw it? There was a lawsuit.

We have had this show on T.V. over here in New Zealand

Yes,we have had this show on T.V. over here in New Zealand.I like Gordon Ramsay's no-nonsense way of doing things. - (Aidan Work 04:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

In Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Korea, Netherlands, Ireland, Mexico and Brazil, all the profane language is transmitted uncensored

incorrect for nz, c@n someone ch@nge this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.163.174 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Prize

If Michael had accepted the original prize of his own resturant, what would happen to the KCOP lot? 71.111.215.224 19:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

infobox

there is an infobox nowPacman 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contestent last names

I'm trying to track down the contestants' last names, to be incorporated once I have more than a few. So far I have:

• Gabe
• Garrett Telle (Working at "Monzi's" [3]; Monzi's chef's name [4]. Also [5])
• Giacomo Saviano (???- "Saviano's" is the name of his family's restaurant.)
• Keith Greene
• Larry
• Tom (Pauley? So claimed by some anonymous person on Fox discussion board.)
• Heather West [6]
• Maribel
• Polly (information finding hint- she owns a business called "the Food Snob")
• Rachel Brown [7]
• Sara
• Virginia Dalbeck [8]

Can anyone do the same for the first season? Found more first season last names at imdb [9] Crypticfirefly 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

season 2 rewrite?

Now that the season is over, I wonder if the season 2 episode recaps are written in an encyclopedic tone, as many of the season 1 recaps appear to be. Is there any interest in breaking the episode facts down into some core elements and leaving complete show recaps (including quotes and extraneous stuff) to the show fan sites?

An example:

• Original airdate: July 10, 2006
• Team Challenge: The teams were told to taste various high cuisine dishes such as caviar and fondue, not realizing they were made of average ingredients such as hot dogs and spray cheese. Afterwards, the contestants did a taste test while blindfolded. The Red Team won a TV Guide photoshoot, leaving the Blue Team to clean the kitchen.
• During the service period, the Blue Team managed to get all their entrees out, and the Red Team was chosen as the worst.
• Nominees for Elimination: Rachel and Maribel. Rachel was eliminated.

Thoughts? SpikeJones 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Since there have been no opinions *against* this thought, I'll start stripping down the episodes shortly. SpikeJones 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Heather's restaurant

While the finale showed Heather addressing the staff at the T-Bones restaurant at Red Rocks, in a recent interview (see references section), she stated that she still hasn't taken the position yet, and is uncertain about which restaurant she is working at. She hinted at being employed at the Italian restaurant. --Madchester 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Move episode list?

Hi, I noticed that the episode list is slowly starting to take up more room in the article, especially when Season 3 ends, and there'll be about 30 episode entries by then.. Is it okay if I move the list to a seperate article? --Illyria05-- 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding link to mosaic tile site

I'm new at this wiki stuff, but I was trying to add a link to a site that I saw that had a page about the kitchen set on Hell's Kitchen. I thought it would be relevant. I'm not trying to spam. The page linked to is about the show. And the glass tile is really cool. I'll submit to the community's decision, but I really wasn't trying to spam. If the text label needs to be changed, fine. I don't care, I just thought that people who like the show would like that page. 70.91.195.190 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

People might like it, but it is a commercial site, and therefor not permitted. Please read WP:EL policy about external links. --Edokter (Talk) 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Canada?

Out in Canada, at least with basic cable, we only get the Fox edition. So the section with 'Canada is uncensored' would be incorrect ... to an extent.

The Food Network airs the series, once the series is finished being originally broadcast on Fox, entirely uncensored. Sign your posts. 67.68.42.4 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever confirmed this? I watch Food Network religiously and I've never seen a single episode of Hell's Kitchen on it. Furthermore, Food Network is a "non-premium cable channel", and so would never broadcast an uncensored program featuring profanity during its normal programming. --Slordak (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know you mean by completely "uncensored", unless if it's after the watershed(9PM) or a premium channel. At least f-word would be censored if it's before watershed, while sh** can be uncensored.tablo (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Restructure

This article needs to be restructured. I had to read about how the show's broadcast and about the profanity used before I even knew what the hell the show was about. The basic premise needs to be in the article lead. 60.242.25.81 (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

I understand that pages names should be short, but the name of the HK pages need to reflect two different disambiguations:

• There is more than just a TV series that is named "Hell's Kitchen", so the TV show pages need to state that clearly in the name per WP:D; for TV shows, this is normally done by adding "(TV series)" to the end of the title.
• The standard convention when there are two different TV series by country, then the country abbreviation is added to the front, per WP:TV-NAME.

Thus, while "Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)" is sufficient to make the disambigiouation between other "Hell's Kitchen" uses including the UK version, this is not consistent with other TV shows or guidelines, nor is it helpful to the reader since they need to read into the article further to understand if this is the right topic ("US" what? restaurant? show? movie?), as suggested by WP:NAME. --MASEM 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I agree. However, I once got into a spat with another admin, including block threats towards me, for doing the exact same thing. Plus, "series" and "season" should not have been capitalised. So I have reverted for now and cleaned up all dangling redirects, but let's get consensus first before moving them to the proper (UK/U.S. TV series) names. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Series" and "season" in the article disamb sections don't have to be capitalized. Can you provide a link to where the admin threatened that before, just to see what the arguments were there? --MASEM 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said... no capitalisation. The argument is here. — Edokter • Talk • 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The name needs to indicate this is a TV series, since there are other uses for the term "Hell's Kitchen". No different than The Office and its various franchises (The Office (U.S. TV series), The Office (UK TV series), etc.) The title alone gives no indication if this is a TV series, film, book, or album - the last 3 mediums that have also used the same title. --Madchester (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stupid quote

Ok, I just had to put this up somewhere. Just watching season 1. Ramsay saying (in the last episode) "OK you old ladies, go around the corner and scratch your fannies". You have to be british, like Ramsay, to get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.247.143 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramsay

Surely it should be "Ramsay", not "Chef Ramsay" throughout. Chef is not an honorific. 121.44.174.200 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting

I removed the following sentence from the Australia portion of the Broadcasting section - it just makes no sense in the context of the paragraph. --Bapaveza (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • However due to very high ratings of his Nightmares series which currently screens 8:30 pm Tuesdays and Thursdays on the Nine Network, it recommenced 30 April 2008.

Actual Restaurant?

I am unable to find any reference to how the restaurant patrons are selected for the services. Is it an actual restaurant location and are the patrons walk-ins? 68.147.152.169 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. 'Patrons', as you so kindly put it, are, for the most part, an assorted bunch of hobos, wash-outs, and other generally unemployed and more-or-less perpetually starving people, such as Hollywood star wannabees.

DVD Release and Advertisement

The DVD Release section is coming close to violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. On other pages where DVD Release information is recorded there are no "selling" or "talking" points to encourage the reader to purchase the material. (With the exception of Special Features or Bonus Material). See the following page as reference: Seinfeld DVD Releases. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the programme scripted or staged?

This is supposed to be a 'reality' show, but I find little in it that is realistic. I also note that there are a multitude of directors, producers and scriptwriters all over this programme, which leads me to wonder whether this is for real.

• This isn't a forum for Q&A. If you have to ask a question about this then obviously there is no reliable reporting about it, therefore it has no business here. Dp76764 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple Google search will turn up a Gordon Ramsay interview where he states this about a previous season: Of course it’s real. There’s nothing played for any form of camera. You see 44 or 42 minutes of the edited version and I run service from 6:00 until 10:00, four hours, and cook for 120 guests. Of course it’s going to look like it’s combustive, tenacious and full of drama, and it is, but there’s no script.. Hope that helps. SpikeJones (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Spike - it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reality TV requires a large number of people to sort through hours and hours of footage and construct a 42-minute cohesive episode that a viewer can watch and understand. You'd better believe it requires writers to do that properly, and that's it's far too big a job for just a few producers and directors. Unlike scripted television, where you're filming something specific and film it repeatedly and pick the best take, in reality TV you film hours and hours of footage and then try to make something from that footage after the fact. It's a big undertaking. - 69.3.115.44 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 Prize The article states that the winner of season 4 was the new Sous-Chef at the London West Hollywood. The show specifically states repeatedly that the winner of Season 4 is going to be the Executive Chef of the London West Hollywood. 75.177.87.95 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a talk page or the message board?

Angel 216.255.121.150 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramsay not in main cast?

I know it may seem obvious to anyone who's ever seen the show, but it still seems odd that Gordon Ramsay is not even briefly mentioned in the main cast section. Something about him should be included and I would do it myself, but I'm not particularly sure how to word it. --13² 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reality factor?

I have a hard time believeing that Ramsay just casually goes ahead and gravely insults guests who approach the kitchen, and that all of the contestants aren't coached somewhat in advance... Of course, it'll be written off as speculation, heh. Still... 85.19.140.9 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

- There is no doubt that there is a certain element of manipulation going on. So far, season 5 have been really over the top and I'm sure I'm not the only one suspicious of fakeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.164.8 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Show

The first sentence of the article states that the show is American, based upon a UK show of the same name. This is misleading. The show is orignally from the UK (Hell's Kitchen) and is not American.

While the opening sentence may literally be interpretable both ways, it does not lead the reader to be accurately informed of the origin of the show -- despite the clause at the end of the senstence.

It should be written as 'Hell's Kitchen is a UK TV show, more famously known in America...' or somesuch.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.232.223 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The version of the show this article discusses is American, and is based upon the UK show, which has its own article. That's accurate and shouldn't be confusing to anyone, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. The rewrite you suggest is simply inaccurate. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of 9/11

Just curious as to why this comes up in the intro of the article. Yeah it happens to share a date with this tragedy, but how is that relevant to the article? I think anyone who reads that date knows the significance of it. For now I'm going to remove it. If someone can make a convincing argument as to how it's relevant, then feel free to add it back. 69.204.203.153 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Season 6

The press release for Season 6 is out now, so I've started the page up at Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 6). I need to head off, but can someone please help me with sources? All the info in the article is based on the press release. Thanks. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

S6 Winner

I'm especially interested in the "aftermath". Dave (S6 winner) doesn't seem to appear on the officaily restauraint website. WTF happend there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.49.71 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Top" Cut Contestants Progression section

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no concensus about changing the contestants who make it to the top cut (Black Coat) from "IN" to "WIN". I've been undoing changes that implement this, but I would like to open it to everybody who is familiar with the show rather than watching each season's page. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Out of process" eliminations and future referencing

Chef Ramsay is allowed to do whatever he wants in terms of eliminations from the show including making the contestants stand on their heads (if he wanted them too). We are a lasting archive of what happened. Personally, I have no problem with backward facing links (occurrences in previous seasons), but forward facing links (Editing Season 5 with an occurrence in Season 8) is not OK. If we want to create an appropriate section on the series page that meets the criteria I would have no problem with that. Hasteur (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Major reconstruction of Broadcasting section

I am working on a userspace draft bold revision of the broadcasting section. I will attempt to figure out which season is broadcasting on the channel claiming the current broadcast. Please take a look at the difference. Once I finish my changes, I'll let it sit for 2 weeks, integrate what changes have occured to the main section, and then boldly apply the change to the article. Please take a look and if you have any concerns please talk to me so that we don't get into an edit war as to the prefered methodology. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've applied all the changes that are currently on the page to my Userspace draft. I've also solicited review from all registered users who have worked on this article back to August. Starting review period Hasteur (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Raj712 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit has been applied. I'm going to begin a RFC for Colors, Footnotes, and Text in the contestant progress section for the series as we have a splattering of different styles. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Contestant Progress Sections

The differences between various seasons of Hell's Kitchen are difficult to keep consistent. In addition there are varying opinions as to the choices for colors, footnotes, and content for the cell. This RFC is for the express purpose of developing a preferred style for the contestant progress section on seasons of the series prior to a refactoring of the content. Hasteur (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is for the following:

• Footnotes: "Red to Blue" team switch, "Blue to Red" team switch
• Colors: 4 colors representing Team Nominated, Ramsay nominated, Voluntary removal, Eliminated

I still am unsure as to the best choice for what the text box should read. but am willing to hear good ideas. Hasteur (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that team switching has little to no impact on the tone of the show. It happens each season and I cannot see the consequence. Also, without a history there is no way to accurately represent the various switches that is any more compact than simply presenting it in the summary. Padillah (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I argue that, since no one has commented on this we make the changes. I am proposing the following:

• No footnotes. This clutters the grid and makes the reader spend time deciphering the results. That's not summary.
• 4 colors - Team Nominated, Ramsay nominated, Voluntary removal, Eliminated. The rest calls for reading the legend and deciphering. Not summary style.

This has been in RfC for weeks but since this is a new notification I will let this stand for one more week. If there are no objections I will begin making the changes to the current season and regress backward. Padillah (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Only point of contention I see is the Text for the progress sections? I'm thinking "Win","Loose","BoB","BoW","Other". Other being used for cases like being ill and not participating in dinner service or in elimination (ex. Bobby in S5) or other cases where they were not part of the dinner service and not dealt with during elimination. You ok with that? In addition RfCs are supposed to last 30 days before implementing a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no problems with the texts you proposed. They are simple and if you can read you don't need to decipher them. And thanks for the elucidation on the RfC timeframe. This is something I've been wanting to clean up for years and now that it seems I can I'm getting impatient. 30 days it is, then. Padillah (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Television Ratings

I think there should be a list indicating its U.S. Television Ratings. But I don't know where I can find it... Will anyone do it?Peterxj108 (talk)

Complaint regarding spoilers

You shouldn't put blatant spoilers all over the front page of this, most people who watch these shows want to be surprised by who wins the seasons. You shouldn't spoiler the winners of every single season in the middle of the page AND the portal multiple times at the bottom. If this was an focused wiki directly on the show and you were discussing the season then yes it might be appropriate to mention the winner, but on the generalized Wikipedia that isn't right. You could have (And probably have at this point) spoiled a lot for fans of the show who like me, just needed to look up a single fact. This needs to be taken down as soon as possible. Updated: And it is even spoiled by looking up the show name in google, Jesus! This needs to be flagged and censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.129.58 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however WP:SPOILER says

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.

We do not censor, hide, or collapse information on articles because it spoils the plot. The individual seasons are done blow by blow, but the overall show/navigation templates are done with just the winners. The most famous spoiler that wikipedia has is not collapsed after many many discussions on this topic. Feel free to take your case to WT:SPOILER to change the concensus, but for the time being I see no reason to redact the individual season winners from the article or template Hasteur (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, insulting the Wikipedia community is not likely to endear us to your viewpoint. Please read WP:CIVIL and consider refactoring your complaint. I have taken the liberty of changing this section's title as it is deliberately inflammatory and offensive. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, in relevancy to your furthermore comment; do not attempt to mislead people into believing that I was talking down to the numerous staff of Wikipedia. The opinion that the article writers are wrong is one thing, insulting is quite another. As emotional as the title was, the point still stands in that I feel that this completely wrong even in your long explanation regarding Wikipedia Spoilers. The huge difference between the example you gave me and the Hell's Kitchen spoiler, is the information is presented in such a way (being Chart form) that easily spoils the content, which is different than stating it in a paragraph. If this information was presented in a separate article (such as Hell's Kitchen - Season Winners) it would be less harming to a fan who wouldn't like the content to be spoiled. The fact that if you choose not to make such an effort for fans and newcomers of the series shows that you wish to openly present the information with the intent of spoiling. The completely takes away from the 'neutral point of view' as previously stated, it just makes the article seem like it was made with a negative intent to spoil and rob the television show of value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.129.58 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The long and short of it is: If you look up information on a topic don't be surprised to find information on that topic. There is no way to tell what any given reader may or may not think is a spoiler and, as such, we cannot cater to individual needs on this issue. If you don't want to know who won Hell's Kitchen, don't look up Hell's Kitchen. Padillah (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if you don't want the show ruined for you, don't use the website. Sound advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.129.58 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article specifically. I'm sure there's very little about Hell's Kitchen in the other 2,000,000,000 articles on WP. But you get the idea. Padillah (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasons layout

The changes from the 24. IP address have significantly changed the layout and color of the seasons section. I disagree with the layout and think the previous coloring and layout were perfectly fine and followed the REVERT step of "Bold, Revert, Discuss". IP address restored their interpretation of the layout in violation of the BRD cycle. Please speak up if anybody thinks I'm wrong, but several of the color combinations and moving the dates into the color bar are not easy to read.. I intend to restore the previous version of this section in a few hours unless I see a significant consensus to keep the current style. I will notify the ip address of this page as they were supposed to discuss re-implementing the change after was reverted.Hasteur (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Archiving

I understand that people like to read the previous discussions, however with 31 main topics and a size 32KB, I am recommending that we allow one of the automated archive bots come in and move absolutely stale threads off into an archive. I recommend those threads that are over 1 year old be archived with a sub-configuration to keep 4 threads here as a minimum for people who are interested in the discussion here. As this can be a very controversial change, please speak up on your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)