Talk:The Next Iron Chef

Contestant Progress table added

I added a contestant progress table and moved the "judges" section to be more consistent with the Top Chef (Season 3) article. I forgot I wasn't logged in when I saved the table, so it's under my IP address.

I'm not completely clear on how the competition is structured-- in episode one, the chairman referred to "eight challenges". Is he referring to eight total challenges, or eight elimination challenges? I struggled a bit on whether or not the non-elimination challenges should be on the table... if they're considered part of the eight, I think they should be there; otherwise, they shouldn't.

Other things I considered:
1. using the challenges' names instead of numbers on the table (a bit too wide, in my opinion)
2. using a different background color for the elimination challenge numbers (red instead of dark gray, but ONLY on the challenge number, not the whole column)
3. adding "HIGH" and "LOW" for contestants who were obviously safe from elimination vs. those who were obviously in jeopardy, but the show doesn't make this as clear (at least for "HIGH"s) as Top Chef does
4. using only contestants' first names on the table (but unlike Top Chef, almost every reference to the chef's name includes the last name, such as Alton Brown calling out "Chef Sanchez!" for adding to his dish after time had expired in episode 1, challenge 2).

Also, for anyone else who edits the table, please keep the contestants in order by last name unless they have been eliminated.
-Kcowolf 08:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Low

Sinec there is usually two chefs that are considered the judges least favorite dshes, could we include the one that did not lose as in the low category? 70.127.22.135 13:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Table, Results

I edited the table to move the eliminated chefs below the others. Were the two chefs eliminated at the same time (i.e. both at the end of the episode)? I didn't get to watch this time.

Also, under results, I suggest that instead of "Round one", "Round two", and then "Challenge 1" "Challenge 2", etc. under each round, that instead we change it to "Episode 1", "Episode 2", and then number all the challenges the same way they're numbered on the table. It would look like this:

Episode 1

Challenge 1: Speed

summary, winner

Challenge 2: Artistry

summary, winner, eliminated

Episode 2

Challenge 3: Simplicity

summary, winner

Challenge 4: Innovation

summary, winner, eliminated

...and so on. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

-Kcowolf 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this structure. A standard naming convention will be easier to follow and help to relate the summaries to the table. Larkworb 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nice. but I think we should do bold for a subject on there and then the text. Any thoughts? Michael Houang 06:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to watch the show to figure out who is eliminated.

Car Commercials airing on Food Network spoils who will be eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC) I thought so as well, but ep. 5 doesn't follow this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.255.170 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Added bullets to episode descriptions, readded comments to table

I added bullets to the episode descriptions, mostly to match better with the Top Chef articles.

Somewhere along the line the comments in the contestant progress table got lost. I couldn't remember if I'd originally put them in or not, hence the edit summary. -Kcowolf 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags, episode numbers

The table doesn't show winners for future episodes-- the numbers that were at the top refer to challenges. Challenge 5 was part of episode 3, which is the last one that aired.

That said, it looks like the table has been a bit confusing with only challenge numbers. I added episode numbers, but I'd appreciate some input on how it looks. Thanks.

-Kcowolf 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Table colors

Not sure who changed the table colors... I wouldn't mind getting other people's opinions on them. The original colors were there to match the Top Chef tables, and I don't really like the new colors that much. Any thoughts, anyone? -Kcowolf 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead statements

There is a statement at the end of the lead that mentions that the winner is to replace on of the other Iron Chefs and cites a section on Bobby Flay's website that when I went through it did not state anything to this effect. What I did find in the "News" section of his site was a mention that the winner would be joining the rest of the already established Iron Chefs with no mention of anyone leaving. I also removed the information about Mario Batali as it had nothing to do with this show, it is on his personal article which is where it should stay.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Flay indicated that an Iron Chef was leaving in the "Ask Bobby" section of his website on 9/17/07. Unfortunately, the design of this section causes previous questions to drop off the list as more questions are asked, so the text of his statement is no longer displayed on the site. He did not indicate which chef was leaving although, based on other reports and the final episode, it seems like it is Mario Batali. However, Food Network has stated that he will continue to appear on Iron Chef. Larkworb 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More info about why those who were eliminated

Can it be worked in somehow, illuminate as to why the competing chefs were eliminated? For example, the judges felt that Morou couldn't "tie" a dish together because he kept putting items on small piles on the plate. He didn't take that into consideration for the next challenge and was eliminated. Joemaza 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate Pages for Season 1 (2007) and Season 2 (2009)

It may be cleaner to break this into 3 pages - main page and separate pages for seasons 1 and 2. IMO. Phil deCube 18 October 2009

Or, prehaps we can re-number the episodes: 1.x for first season, 2.x for second season. PhilDeCube (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating contestants

I've just reverted a good-faith edit, adding details of recent ICA battles involving two series 2 contestants: Holly Smith and Dominique Crenn. While I can see the sense of adding these, it creates two problems. First, the battles were after the fact. At the time Crenn and Smith competed, the didn't have ICA experience, which is noteworthy. That they got it after the competition is relevant to ICA, but not to NIC, and misleads the reader. Second, and more importantly, the article should reflect who the contestants were at the time they competed. Later updates add nothing, aren't particularly notable, and create a problem we encountered with Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares: what's the article about? On both the US and UK version of the Kitchen Nightmares articles, there is a periodic attempt to update the status of the individual restaurants Ramsay visited, largely to note closures. The trouble is, it creates the impression Ramsay is accountable for their status into the indefinite future and responsible for their success or failure. Moreover, because the only thing anyone ever wants to add is closures, it gives undue attention to that one point. That's what lead us to a long, recurring discussion of whether they were needed or even appropriate. In the end, the majority of us agreed the show is about what Ramsay does with the restaurants while he's there, not about what happens to them after the fact. Those details can be added to individual restaurant articles if the restaurant is notable enough, but not to the article. It's much the same reasoning as is applied to limit updates regarding competitors on shows such as Dancing with the Stars or Survivor, which continues to have issues with editors wanting to keep track of romances and add gossipy news that happens long after the show is over.

The same principle applies here. We need the article to reflect the competitors at the time they competed, since the article is about the competition, not what the chefs are doing once the competition ends. No one added Eric Greenspan's appearance on Next Food Network Star, or noted that Gavin Kaysen had a later grudge match with Michael Symon, which he won. And what if the chefs change restaurants? Kaysen has left the Rancho Bernardo Inn, and is now working in New York for Daniel Baloud. And what about other shows the competitors have? Cosentino and Sanchez are on their second season of Chefs v. City. If we start updating, we open the same Pandora's box as I described above. So we don't. We put details like that where they are relevant: in the individual chef's or appropriate shows' articles, and leave the descriptions of the chefs here to reflect who they were at the time they competed. Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Contestant Progress Table for Season 3

Apparently someone doesn't like my color selections, which is fine, but there is a new mechanic in this season (unlike the others) where the loser of a challenge can get penalized instead of just the winner(s) being rewarded. While some people are paranoid about this "not being Top Chef" because the highs and lows aren't explicitly mentioned, the disadvantaged chef most certainly is. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been done once -- you're assuming that will continue to happen, although it wasn't done in the first episode, but have no reliable source that's the case. The summary of the episode covers advantage, disadvantage and any other twists they add. The contestant progress table is just that: who's in and who's out. If you'll review the article, you'll see colors and table structure are consistent from series to series, which is important in an encyclopedia. The editors of Top Chef or other elimination programs may add more (I find Top Chef's nightmarishly complicated to read) but this is a comparatively simple, and short, competition, which doesn't demand the kind of table some of the others do. Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a table indicator for the chef who receives a disadvantage from the first challenge in each episode. This is an important part of each episode and I think it deserves to be noted in the chart, just as the win from the first challenge is noted. While I understand and agree with the importance in having consistency from season to season and also in keeping things simple, when the structure of the seasons change, the Wikipedia article must adapt with the times. --Crunch (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The disadvantage is already covered in the article, and is a minor outcome comparatively speaking. It doesn't need to be in the table. Drmargi (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fist of all, you have no right to immediately revert my change without a full discussion involving all editors. Second, the argument that the outcome is covered in the article makes no sense. All the outcomes are covered in the article. Why not remove the entire table? Third, it seems clear that the editor above, atropos235, previously disagreed with you on this same issue; you are beginning to come across as a bully. Finally, and most importantly, it makes zero sense to notate WINS for the first challenge in the table without notating the LOSSES (i.e., disadvantage), since the relative advantage and disadvantage given to the chefs is the same. Please respect the Wikipedia process and stop immediately reverting edits simply because you disagree with them. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do, because it's been reverted several times, and should have been discussed before it was added again. The table is a summary of the progress of the contestants. The disadvantage is a minor penalty designed to make the show more exciting, not a significant outcome. The judges have nothing to do with it, they never know about it and it doesn't materially affect who wins or loses. The table doesn't include more important outcomes, including who his considered high or low, nor does it need to. So why include the disadvantage? C'mon, how much does ONE MINUTE really affect any of them? We can see it makes them a little anxious while they wait, and that's about it. Adding it to the table falls under WP:UNDUE. I don't think it even needs to be noted under the description of the challenge in the narrative. It just isn't that important. Drmargi (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why the Winner of the first challenge in each episode is noted in the table but the loser is not? They are generally each given equivalent advantages or disadvantages. I agree that taking away or adding a minute isn't changing the outcome, but it's not our job to judge that. It's job to report what happened. That's what an encyclopedia does. Also, if you disagree with an edit, reverting it within minutes is not the way to solve the conflict. Discussing it here on a Talk page is the way to solve the conflict. Again, I would appreciate if you would respect the Wikipedia process in doing that. Thanks again. --Crunch (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But what you're overlooking is that a discussion was underway when you added it back, therefore it should never have been added in the first place. Please don't preach to me about respecting the procedure when your actions failed to do so. Moreover, your latest addition could potentially have lead to an edit war. You might also read my earlier point regarding wins and losses. Adding the disadvantage is a selective addition of a minor distinction that has no bearing on the final outcome, while the designation of stronger contestants, etc. by the judges, which does lead to an elimination decision, are not noted. It's inconsistent, and as I suggested earlier, falls under WP:UNDUE. Just because it's new and shiny doesn't make it all that important. Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not worth arguing with. Obviously reality television means more to you than to me. Have a great day. --Crunch (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Season 4 biographies

I edited the Season 4 biographies to put them in full sentences, rather than sentence fragments. Drmargi then instantly reverted my edit claiming it was "too wordy." If people want to revert a change like this, it should be discussed here and a consensus reached. Please discuss (no sock puppets, please). --Crunch (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating during the show (Season 4)

I usually update the descriptions for the episodes while the episode is going on. I have set up the layout for how the episode is recapped and hope that it works for all. Also, as soon as I can get episode descriptions for future episodes, I will put them in. Usually, I am editing the page along with someone else who does the table.

I just want to make sure that the update is accurate about who will be eliminated at the end of the show. I usually put in the Winner of the Chairman's Challenge, along with the Bottom Two, plus the Secret Ingredient in the Secret Ingredient Showdown. Hopefully, I don't create a page conflict when I go to put in who survives the cookoff and who is eliminated. TheChewmiester (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Judging by the history of several IP addresses 'updating' the finale of Season 4, which has not even aired, as well as other vandalism, this page should be temporarily protected. Any thoughts? --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we catch them fairly quickly most times. Though I'm not completely against it I don't know if an admin would do it because so far its only like 3-4 times or so and reverted within 10 minutes at the most. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother for the sake of six days. Protection is often more trouble than its worth, and we're catching them fast. Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmargi here. We are usually good at catching things anyway. We know who are the good editors here...TheChewmiester (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Episode list, anyone?

Does anyone think we need an episode list article for this series? Or possible "hiding" the seasons here? There's a fifth season coming, which will make this article VERY long. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a distinct possibility of a definite maybe. I can see how long the article is getting, and find myself wondering if there's a way to condense some of the episode-by-episode content. At the same time, I find myself wondering what would be left of the main article if we evacuate all that content to a second, almost as long, episode article. How's that for a non-answer? --Drmargi (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, is it time for separate articles on each season? We would not then have any single article growing too large, and the main article could have a 3-6 sentence summary for each season with a link to the sub-page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No response? If I get no response in another day or two I am likely to be Bold and just go ahead and break out the seasons to their own articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. How does WP:SIZERULE apply? I doubt you meet the minimum. --Drmargi (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's 5 seasons already. I'd say it IS time to break down the seasons to their own articles.User:SCSI Commando

Another option, middle ground, is to just break off the new season. I've seen a number of other reality shows do that, the first few seasons are wrapped up in the main article, but at some point the new seasons start to each be developed in their own, separate articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Contestant biography info confusing

This example from Season 2 "Jehangir Mehta (Executive Chef and owner, Graffiti, New York City); lost to Masaharu Morimoto in Battle Coconut in Season 7" indicates that the contestant lost in Season 7, but NIC hasn't had a season 7. After some review I realized that this was referring to ISA, but that is not obvious on its face. It seems like references to another show should be noted as such, either individually or with an explanation at the beginning of the section. 2601:9:1100:2AE:74EC:5F50:AE17:E5BA (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)