Talk:List of Chopped episodes (season 41–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorting[edit]

The prior order of contestants was not common-sensical and is not reader friendly. Unless you watch the show while reading the article, it's not apparent that the order of listing is by order shown on the episode. To do by the earlier order creates chaotic, higgledy-piggledy unreadable sets of lists of contestants.Agent 86 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow up to the edit that provided no rational explanation for "alternative" order: it is more valuable and useful info to know results of rounds as they occur, rather than order the person was shown on screen.Agent 86 (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wholeheartedly disagree. Every recap I have ever seen for a game show (and I've seen a lot) will list the contestants in podium order, with placement a secondary consideration. With your reordering of the contestants, this podium order information is lost and unrecoverable. As it is, the reordering adds negligible value, and, in my opinion, negative value. Teapot37 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal observations are irrelevant. The issue is the value of the information. There is little intrinsic value in the order the contestants appear onscreen. There is greater value in organizing contestants in the order they were eliminated. Moreover, it provides consistency over the many entries on the list.Agent 86 (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out Of Order[edit]

The episodes are not in the right order. The episode numbers are not in alignment with the dates of broadcast. --BluWik (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and overlinking[edit]

I've just gone through the article and significantly reduced the notes to those which are directly related to the outcomes of various rounds. We don't need to know every plate that went to a judge incomplete, a tally of who's from where for the first time, if chefs with same names are related, who they work for who also works for Food Network, what color their aprons were or other, similar, fancruft that overloaded this article. We do need to know variations in the usual rules and procedures (such as use of a grill or extended time) or actions by chefs that directly lead to an outcome (such as bringing in an ingredient.) This article needs to be written to an encyclopedic standard, and all this fancruft simply doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic standards.

The article is also heavily overlinked, and will require considerable reduction of links. For example, he judges should be only linked the first time they appear in a season, common ingredients are not linked, and well-known locations should not be linked. Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job so far. I agree, there was a lot of trivia in there, and to say that it is a heavily overlinked article is an understatement. However, I do think that some of the matters are relevant and more than trivial. For example, I think it is important to note competitors who work in the judges' restaurants or have some sort of significant tie to the panel or the network. To me, it raises the very important matter of the potential for bias in the judging, so noting how the competitor is linked to the panel and seeing how they fared in the competition is important.Agent 86 (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if the employing judge is judging the competition. Otherwise, not really, but neither is this the hill I want to die on. Notes such as Giletto being a sous chef for Cora are less significant, and in this particular case, inaccurate; Giletto was her sous chef for one ICA battle, which puts an entirely different complexion on the note. Restore what you feel should be added back, and I'll tweak if need be. Drmargi (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious, I had no idea you were still up. I'm sorry if my most recent edit came across as an insult! I was simply picking up on things since I now had my mind turned to it. In addition to removing some of the judges' names overlinking, I restored or rewrote things up to season 3. I agree with you that it's irrelevant that a competitor worked for someone who's a fixture on another show, but I still always watch an episode with a raised eyebrow when a competitor works for one of the regular stable of Chopped judges. (As an aside, that's why I found it a bit conflict-of-interest for the usual gang to be judging the final round of the $50K competition.) I also thought some of the facts that were relevant were things like the first head-to-head competition between two female competitors (given the comparative number of women in the industry) or incidents in which more than the merits of the food came into play in the judging such as poor hygene (not a regular occurence)!.Agent 86 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a night owl! Heavens, here was no insult taken; that's just me being terse when I use my iPad to edit. I can be more verbose when I have ten fingers on a keyboard. Thanks for finishing off the unlinking of the judges. It looks vastly better. I'm not so sure with the female judge/contestant business, but it's a small enough thing. But I see where you're going with the potential bias; I may have cut a bit too much there. My rule of thumb for cuts was to ask whether the content of the note related to the outcome -- if it did, it stayed. If it fell into the "isn't that interesting?" category, it went. Now, on to the overlinked ingredients! I also want to edit a few notes for grammar or wordiness, as I go. Drmargi (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, those over-linked ingredients. If we don't hear from you for the next few weeks, we know where you're trapped.Agent 86 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go back and restore some of the unlinked chef's names. They should be linked the first time they appear each season, which is what I had done. That's pretty standard practice for longer articles such as this one. Drmargi (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. On my initial cut, it was easier just to do a global search-and-replace.Agent 86 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not apparent why there are wikilinks to some ingredients and not others (other than it seems incredibly tedious trying to keep track of the first mention of an ingredient). It seems that the commonality of an ingredient is the criterion for linking or unlinking, as many everyday ingredients remain linked. Therefore, I have wikilinked the first referece of an ingredient in the list; however, unlike the names of the judges, it does not seem necessary to wikilink an ingredient the first time it appears in a season. The first time it appears in the list is sufficient. I have only done a pass-through of the first two seasons, as those sections are otherwise complete.23:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't finished -- there was no work done on the overlinking in Season 1, nor had the notes been restored. I was having browser problems, which I've solved now, and Seasons 1 and 2 are now finished, with notes in place and numbered correctly (versus the temporary numbers I'd used previously.) The MOS governs what's linked, and common ingredients shouldn't be; the trouble is , what common is always going to be subjective. I've unlinked or left ingredients linked based on my judgment, of course, but also removed some links that were inaccurately or inappropriately linked. And there were a few odd ones, to be sure! Now my browser issue is solved, I should be able to move through the remaining seasons faster. Thanks for the helpful tag! Drmargi (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one of your edit summaries lead me to think seasons 1 and 2 were done. I agree with your thinking on what should and should not be linked, and now that I know you had browser problems it now makes more sense why you left some "common" things linked and other ones you unlinked. You're right, it really is a subjective matter, but overall I think you've excercised great judgment. I did notice some repeats that eluded you, so when I went in to de-link it, I restored the links to a couple items that I think still aren't that common or which aren't fully understood (i.e. rainbow trout because it's not really a trout, Canadian bacon, which is usually called back bacon in Canada). Agent 86 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! You never know how an edit summary will read when someone else looks at it. I'm sure I've missed duplicates, and I think I've got a note to fix, but I'm so pooped right now, I'd rather look at it with fresh eyes in the morning. It will take a couple more days to do the first pass through and get it all in table form, then we can fix to our collective heart's delight. Drmargi (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode-specific comments or footnotes?[edit]

User:Drmargi is doing a great job of cleaning up this article and reformatting it to tables. However, an issue that should be taken to the article's talk page rather than our user talk pages is where to put episode-specific comments. I think the notes should go with the specific episode, especially those that were previously at the start of an episode's entry. I find it it particularly annoying to have to go to the footnotes and then back to the main part of the article when trying to read about the episode. However, Drmargi suggests including them as footnotes, a la List of Iron Chef America episodes. To me, the notes are akin to an "episode summary lite", and is a format common to many "list of (tv show)" articles. I appreciate her concern of too many blank "notes" fields, but it must be possible to format a table to omit a field if it's blank. It would be helpful for other editors to weigh in on this. Something else I have been pondering is whether the "notes" (as I had formatted them) might better serve as an episode summary.Agent 86 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, this isn't a show that demands an episode summary, as is the case it most comparable shows, Moreover, notes aren't put into tables with the rare exception of single-row tables with a notes column and the need for lots to notes. These tables have a handful of notes, and it's possible to use linkable notes numbers to take the reader to the footnote in question. Avoidance of annoyance isn't a good enough reason to make the table longer than it already is with numerous empty cells in order to accommodate a very few notes. I think the potential for addition of too much trivia, which we just removed and/or for table-savvy editors to come in and remove the notes parameter is tremendous. This is a big revision of the article, and we need to both go slowly and live with changes from time-to-time so that we see what works and what doesn't. Drmargi (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to table[edit]

Done, done, done!! There were a number of episodes with July dates that aren't sourced. I've commented them out temporarily until I can review the Food Network schedule and source dates/titles. I'll get that done shortly. In the meantime, it needs a good review, and I'm sure there are some smaller towns in the New York area that need linking. Otherwise, it's all set! Thanks for all your hard work Agent 86!! Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the {{inuse}} template can come down? As I acknowledged before, despite not being a fan of the table format, it certainly looks great and your work paid off. I'm still not sold on the formatting of the notes (which, maybe, should go by another name). I don't think it's similar to the ICA episodes list, because the formats of the tables are so much different. Given the space allotted for each episode, it should be easy to include commentary. The notes, as-is, also diminishes things that be more pertinent, such as a description for the "tournament" episodes. That said, I'm going to leave the whole thing as-is (including a review of the wikilinks) for now. Agent 86 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left the template to give you a crack at review/editing before I removed it. I've removed it now. I think the key to the tournaments is to discuss them in the lead, which needs considerable development. Meanwhile, the tournament episodes are clearly labeled in the tables, and detailed where needed. Drmargi (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Thank you Drmargi and Agent 86 for your hard work. I tried implementing the Notes section in the template with optional parameter. This way the reader would not have to scroll up and down to read them. To test this, I added something to the latest episode. If you don't like it feel free to revert it. Peace. --Huh direction (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the table! What a huge job it was. The problem with that is the MOS, which calls for notes at the bottom of a table; I can see a rule-hound reverting just on principle. Meanwhile, let's take a peek and see what we have! Drmargi (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information that's referred to as "notes" (for now) looks fantastic in the episode entry itself, rather than far-removed at the bottom of it. Love it, love it, love it. Clear, readable, and saves having to scroll up and down, pertinent and relevant info is with the episode entry. I have poured through the MOS (and its subpages), and cannot find any directive stating that this information must appear at the end of a table. Any suggestion that "notes" belong after a table (which is not express) probably refers more to "notes" in the meaning of "footnotes" of sources, rather than "remarks" specific to a table entry (such as an episode in a list like this one). Moreover, the MOS is not policy. At most (as expressed in the MOS itself) it is a guideline, so there is no principle for someone to base any reverting upon. Readability, rather than adherence to a vaguely-expressed suggestion in a guideline, ought to be the priority, so even if there were any express directive one wouldn't even need to rely on WP:IAR to ensure an optimal article. Agent 86 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is taken seriously by most editors, so brushing it aside as not policy is risky. There is value in using the newer notes format to add information regarding the battles, such as timing variations or championship details, but other notes, such as a chef with a cut or similar, should remain in the current format. The nuisance of scrolling is not sufficient reason for the change, particularly given the current notes format includes hyperlinked numbers that link to the associate note, removing the need to scroll. Drmargi (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not brushing it aside, I'm simply noting that it does not require the remarks to be separated from the pertinent episode entries. Moreover, I cannot find any such directive in the MOS or its subpages. I just don't think strict adherence to a guideline for the sake of the guideline at the sacrifice of readability of an article is beneficial. It's more than a "nuisance", it disrupts the flow. In addition, there is a practical purpose in keeping it together, as clicking on the note can be a problem for people using older computers or browsers or slower connections. Agent 86 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa if I misunderstood. But I don't agree that the flow is disrupted. Hyperlinks allow speedy travel back-and-forth between sections of a document, reducing the need for bulky runs of text.Drmargi (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to use hyperlinks to travel back and forth if the information is put in the episode it belongs to. As for bulky runs of text, it actually gets bulkier if all the notes from one season is grouped together instead of inserted in the episode entries. Also, if a new note is to be inserted for an old episode, the numbering for all notes has to be adjusted again. There is very little practical value of separating the notes from the episodes and grouping them by season. So I have to agree with Agent 86 here.--Huh direction (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the episode commentary into the episode entry, for all the reasons set out above by myself and User:Huh direction. The fact that this edit[1] had to be made underscores Huh direction's point on having to adjust numbering. (In fact, I had noticed that clicking on a number took me to a different number in the "notes".) This is also a much more complex means of including episode commentaries, which runs contrary to the advice in Help:Table to keep things simple so that editing is open to the widest number of users, rather than those who are advanced and savvy with things like tables and templates. Hyperlinks to the episode comments are not only unnecessary, they require the reloading of the page every time they're clicked, which is a nuisance for those with slow connections. I know the analogy was made to making this uniform to the formatting of the List of Iron Chef America episodes article. However, that is quite the different kind of list, in that one is simply a line-by-line list of items, without any inclusion of the judges for a particular episode, etc. What might work in one article doesn't govern what should be done in others. Agent 86 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been done without discussion first, given the potentially controversial nature of the change, and because there was a recent discussion that did not reach consensus. I contemplated reverting the whole thing given it was buried in a number of subsequent small edits, but out of respect for the valuable work by other editors that followed it, did not. I have, however, modified the template so that instead of the term "of significance" it simply uses "Competition notes", and removed the excessive formatting. Significance is problematic for a number or reason, particularly because it's arbitrary, overly broad and opens the article up to addition of almost anything from the color tie Ted wore to how much each competitor was sweating. Competition notes is narrower, more precise, adds some simple parameters to what should be included and more in line with the rest of the headings; likewise, the formatting now is consistent with the formatting in the rest of the box, and removes the WP:UNDUE attention to a small number of notes. We now have a label that is specific and on point. Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a significant enough period of time has passed and the discussion had petered out. I also believe that User:Huh direction and I both gave a clear rationale supporting the change. I doubt it was any more bold than when you edited the article to use the table formatting. As for the terminology, I have no problem with "competition notes" and have no particular attachment to "of significance". I considered "episode comment" or "remarks", so "competition notes". I was simply trying to use a term that distinguished that the item was inherent to a specific episode and not simply a footnote, without introducing an entire "plot summary". Agent 86 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus (remember, consensus is agreement, not a vote), and a couple of months really isn't long, but that's water under the bridge now. I didn't undertake the changes to the table format before opening a discussion; thus my point that the same should have been done here. We'll try it for a while, but if clutter ensues; I reserve the right to take it back to the previous form.

I do beg to differ on that point. The conversion to a table was done after a much shorter period of discussion, and only between the two of us, so it is hard to see that as a consensus as you defined it. The discussion on the episode points (hey, that would have been a good name) originated almost as long ago, and at least had the imput of a third person. I also invited discussion on at least three relevant Wikiprojects, so there was certainly no lack of effort on my part to encourage discussion on the point. In no way was there a !vote or anything. I made the change based upon the rationales set out by myself and Huh direction. I found his/her comments quite compelling, in fact. Besides any aesthetics there are actual practical benefits to the change, such as:

  1. it keeps the article simple so that "anyone can edit" (keeping with the mandate of Wikipedia), as it only requires a user to fill in a blank rather than deal with inserting templates and more complex wiki markup
  2. it does away with the complication of ensuring the numbers line up
  3. it is reader-friendly as the page need not reload by having to click a link, which is frustrating if one has an older machine or slow connection.Agent 86 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why certain info is non-trivial[edit]

Whether or not something affected the final outcome is not the sole criterion as to whether or not something is trivial. The following information should not be dismissed as trivial for the reasons set out:

  1. "Chef Admoy asserted that this resulted in his elimination" - This is more a clarification, as it was Admoy's assertion that was more explicit than what the judges implied.
  2. "Chef Lustberg is allergic to both eggplant and grapefruit, ingredients in the last two rounds" - Quite significant, as this competitor was effectively working under a handicap, which could have been a disadvantage in a competitive setting. This directly relates to the play of the game and its outcome.
  3. "This was the first episode in which two female competitors faced each other in the final round." The culinary industry is male dominated. When female chefs are pitted against male chefs, it definitely sets the dynamic. This fact is notable in that it took 3 seasons to get to this point. Note that subsequent female-versus-female final rounds are not indicated. That is because the circumstance ceases to be notable.
  4. "This is the first episode to feature an all-female panel of judges." Pretty much as before. No different than noting the first all-female board of directors of a major company. Heck, no different than Chaz Bono being the first trans-gendered contestant on DWTS.
  5. "This was the first "redemption" episode" - More a matter of clarity.
  6. "Chef Nitahara chose to give part of his winnings to Chef Magris in order to allow her to visit her ailing grandmother in France." - To quote the user who added this,"Given that the entire point of the competition is to win $10,000, a chef winning and deciding not to keep all the money is non-trivial."

Even if any of these were trivial, which I think they are not, it should be remembered that WP:TRIVIA does not ban, prohibit or discourage trivia qua trivia. That guideline simply discourages trivia sections; in fact, it incourages integrating such information into the body of the article, as is done in this one. Agent 86 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have restored the above facts to the article. The restored facts were added by various editors. Most users have explained or justified their additions, on the talk page or edit summaries. No cogent, rational, or reasoned basis has been put forth for their exclusion beyond an assertion that they are trivia. They were removed without any justification beyond a general reference to WP:BRD. It should be noted that WP:BRD is not policy, or even a guideline. It is nothing more than an essay. Moreover, WP:BRD clearly states,

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
The essay also clearly sets out that if a user is going to invoke the essay, it should be backed up on the article's talk page. Merely invoking BRP in an edit summary is not enough. Agent 86 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is one editor editing against consensus, with developing ownership issues, nursing a grudge. The tone of your earlier post is all about whether you will allow changes or not, based on criteria you laid out. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Please see WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; comments such as the ones about the three named chefs are about the chef, not the show, and fall under both. This has been well-established over and over again in a range of reality articles. Others above are similarly trivial and can be gleaned from simple examination of the article. Notes are designed to be clarifications that allow the reader to understand the article, not "it's nice to know" content. The Chaz Bono analogy doesn't parallel this situation.

Moreover any given the level of controversy, any further changes to the format of the article or template should be discussed and consensus for change reached in advance. There was no consensus for the original change in template, just one editor's imperious attitude that he alone had the right to judge the better argument, which was of course his own, and in effect, rule on consensus by editing. This is not acceptable practice. In both cases, WP:BRD does apply, and it takes two to edit war. I'm not the one reverting against consensus. Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't know what to say to you. I have laid out the facts, supported by policy and guidelines, and have avoided any sort of personal commentary. I find that your baseless accusations are more a reflection of yourself than anything I, or any other editor, have done. If any editor acted contrary to "consensus", as you define it, it's you. You arbitrarily converted the article to a table, over my objections and concerns. Yet when I, and other editors, have acted consistently and within policy and guidelines, your objections seem to take priority. You have yet to address any of the rationales set out by myself and the other editors, as set out above, on their merits. Rather, you have simply thrown out personal accusations and ad hominem arguments (which, judging from your talk page, seems to be your modus operandi when articles are not being edited in the way you see fit).
To address the bizarre suggestion that I am somehow acting unilaterally without any attempt to reach consensus, it seems necessary to repeat myself:

The conversion to a table was done after a much shorter period of discussion, and only between the two of us, so it is hard to see that as a consensus as you defined it. The discussion on the episode points (hey, that would have been a good name) originated almost as long ago, and at least had the imput of a third person. I also invited discussion on at least three relevant Wikiprojects, so there was certainly no lack of effort on my part to encourage discussion on the point. In no way was there a !vote or anything. I made the change based upon the rationales set out by myself and Huh direction. I found his/her comments quite compelling, in fact.
My words and actions are completely contrary to your suggestion of ownership issues, grudges, and what not. You have relied on an essay to counter edits that comply with policy and guidelines. It is also disingenuous to suggest that I am acting alone, when several other editors have added the content that you oppose. You preach about acting within "acceptable practice", yet you clearly fail to do so yourself, as evidenced by your failure to follow the procedures in the essay you relied upon to revert edits made by a number of editors, not just those made by me. It is also interesting how you can take both sides of the issue when it suits you. As an example, you just said "This has been well-established over and over again in a range of reality articles." Yet on your own talk page, in lecturing another editor, you say, "What other articles do...doesn't, by default, govern what is done with this one."
In short, by your words and actions, it appears that consensus means only those things you agree with. How else can one interpret such statements as "I reserve the right to take it back to the previous form"?
Turning to the article itself, I should note that none of the facts you take issue with were added to the article to me. They were all added by other users, most of whom I note provided justifications for their inclusion in their edit summaries. I simply provided further discussion as to why those facts are beyond mere trivia. The facts go beyond the "it's nice to know" level, for the reasons already elaborated upon above. You keep stating that WP:TRIVIA supports your assertions, yet reading that guideline does not support the conclusions you wish to draw. In fact, WP:TRIVIA runs contrary to your assertions. I have already cited the provisions of the guideline that show it is primarily concerned with trivia sections. As I understand your position, you assert that WP:TRIVIA can form the basis for excluding information from an article. However, the guideline clearly states "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations."
I also fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE supports your assertions. That provision does not address the contents of any specific article; rather, it addresses whether a topic is encyclopedic and merits an article. In other words, it is concerned with article creation. WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be relevant if you were suggesting this article is not encyclopedic, but is not relevant to the matter you've put into issue. I find support for that conclusion by the fact that WP:INDISCRIMINATE opens with a cross-reference to WP:NOTE (a widely accepted guideline). As WP:NOTE states, "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."
Now, you can choose to address those points (and the ones set out above) on their merits, or you can find other ways to accuse me of trying to forment dissent. It's up to you. Agent 86 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the info about Chef Lustberg and his allegery. I won't repeat what has been pointed out ad nauseum about how it is relevant and germane; moreover, how there is no exclusionary policy that warrants, mandates, or justifies its removal. At most, there is an almost fallacious assertion akin to argumentum ad ignorantiam that somehow says that all information has to be excluded from an article until all the information is available to include in the article. If that were based in any sort of policy, I'd wager that over half, if not more, of the articles and lists on wikipedia would have to be eliminated. In short, the info satisfies the five pillars and is not contrary to any policy. Agent 86 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a computer malfunction when I added my most recent edit summary. In short, WP:TRIVIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:BRD do not apply - the latter one isn't even a guideline, let alone policy. It has been pointed out over and over again how WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not apply, and appear not to have been read by the person citing them. Moreover, the person repeatedly citing the 'ESSAY, WP:BRD, has not bothered to follow the simplest rules set out in the essay, which include taking it to the talk page rather than doing it through edit summaries. Agent 86 (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Lustberg's allergy[edit]

It seems that despite my repeated invitiation for an editor to provide a reasoned, rational, policy-based reason to exclude certain information, it simply results in reverts with vague references to policies, guidelines, and essays of dubious applicability. The example of Chef Lustberg's allergy is an excellent one.

First, the information has been added with an explanation of its purpose and context. There is a real and substantial connection to the information and the episode in the list. The chef is allergic to two of the secret ingredients in the competition. Setting aside for the fact that episode annotations do not need to be strictly limited to the portion of the show regarding the cooking itself, this fact is significant in that the competitor was effectively working under a handicap, which could have been a disadvantage in a competitive setting. This directly relates to the play of the game and its outcome.

Several policies, guidelines, and essays have been cited to support the assertion that including this substantive information must not be included. No direct reference has been made of what particular passages of those policies, guidelines, and essays bar inclusion of the information. Policies, guidelines, and essays most often asserted, without any direct citation of relevant passages or explanations as to how they apply to bar this info include:

  • "WP:TRIVIA": Even a superficial reading of this guideline shows that this does not exclude the information. WP:TRIVIA does not ban, prohibit or discourage trivia qua trivia. The guideline simply discourages trivia sections; in fact, it incourages integrating such information into the body of the article, as is done in this one.
  • "WP:INDISCRIMINATE": This does not address the contents of any specific article; rather, it addresses whether a topic is encyclopedic and merits an article. In other words, it is concerned with article creation. WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be relevant if you were suggesting this article is not encyclopedic, but is not relevant to the matter you've put into issue. I find support for that conclusion by the fact that WP:INDISCRIMINATE opens with a cross-reference to WP:NOTE (a widely accepted guideline). As WP:NOTE states, "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."
  • "WP:BRD". Numerous times, this and other info have been removed with a general reference to WP:BRD. However, "BRD" is not a policy or guideline mandating or supporting the removal of relevant and germane information. Rather, it is an essay. It has no force of policy; it is not even a guideline. It has simply been asserted as a basis for reverting good-faith edits which, by the way, is completely contrary to the essay. WP:BRD clearly states,

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
The essay also clearly sets out that if a user is going to invoke the essay, it should be backed up on the article's talk page. Merely invoking BRP in an edit summary is not enough. Not once in the many times that it has been "invoked" has it been followed by any backing up on the talk page. In fact, it seems the only one taking it to the talk page each time after the essay was invoked was me.

There is also a strange assertion in the edit summaries that unless all chefs with food allergies have theirs included in this article, then no chef should. I cannot even begin to think what policy, guideline, or essay supports such a proposition. The closest thing I can think of, as I have already stated, is that it is somewhat analogous to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

None of these points have been addressed or even countered on their merits. In the final analysis, there is no reason to exclude this fact, nor any of the other facts under this larger heading. Agent 86 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Copied from Template talk:Chopped: Because it seems that even the tiniest modification is deemed "controversial", it seems necessary to explain the simple addition of italics. Because the list of competitors and episode comments are in the same box, the italics provide a break between one type of info (the competitors and their particulars) and another type of info (annotations about the episode). Agent 86 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to provide a link to the original discussion and request input by editors there, rather than divide the discussion between two talk pages. I've responded in the appropriate talk page. Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third word in under this section is a link to the original discussion, so I don't follow what you're saying. AFAIC, the only place it should be necessary to discuss the inclusion of italics is on the talk page of the template itself. However, I doubted that people who have participated in editing this article or this talk page would have looked there. Agent 86 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is why you put in the link, which I can see is there now. Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode annotations[edit]

From Template talk:Chopped: I have changed the line item for episode annotations from "Competition notes" to "Episode notes". As indicated by the article's title, "List of Chopped episodes", the article is about the program's episodes and is not strictly limited to the competition within each episode. The annotations are appropriate for more than just things directly related to the cooking portion of the program, as it is appropriate to include annotations about anything of pertinence to a specific episode that is encyclopedic, such as information pertinent to the production of the program itself, contextual information about a specific episode, etc. Agent 86 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While clearly hypotheticals as they have not occurred, more concrete examples of pertinent information would be things like a significant acheivement of a specific episodes in the ratings, a notable guest host, a notable director of an episode, an award garnered by a specific episode, etc. Strictly speaking, those examples are not "competition" notes, but they would be important things to include about an episode. Agent 86 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And an open door to adding trivia. There are a number of guidelines, notably WP:INDISCRIMINATE that limit what we add in the way of notes already, and for good reason. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking that to its logical conclusion, merely having an article invites "trivia". Which, risking repetition, is not contrary to any policy or guideline. At most, WP:TRIVIA discourages trivia sections. Moreover, it has been explained or justified numerous times, by numerous editors, why information in the article is encyclopedic. As already stated above, without any contradiction:
...you assert that WP:TRIVIA can form the basis for excluding information from an article. However, the guideline clearly states "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." I also fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE supports your assertions. That provision does not address the contents of any specific article; rather, it addresses whether a topic is encyclopedic and merits an article. In other words, it is concerned with article creation. WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be relevant if you were suggesting this article is not encyclopedic, but is not relevant to the matter you've put into issue. I find support for that conclusion by the fact that WP:INDISCRIMINATE opens with a cross-reference to WP:NOTE (a widely accepted guideline). As WP:NOTE states, "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Agent 86 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients[edit]

I change stuff like baby romanesco and goat's milk butter to baby romanesco cauliflower and goat's butter because that's what they were on-screen. However, stuff like hen of the woods in Episode 7.9 as hen of the woods mushrooms is fine because it provides further clarity, even though it was not on-screen. But, some of the things you guys are editing like baby romanesco are completely different than baby romanesco cauliflower. (Romanesco is a dialect and romanesco cauliflower is a breed of broccoli.) Since you guys put hen of the woods mushrooms, it would only be right to put baby romanesco cauliflower (and it was how it was on-screen.) Now, putting something like goat's milk butter, you would not assume that the butter is made from the flesh, but the milk. You would not need the milk part, but just the 's to know the butter was from the goat. On the topic of masa dough, I get that masa means dough in Spanish. However, it said masa dough on-screen, and it just provides further clarity for the reader. As for Episode 12.2, Sunny Side Apps, I don't get why you guys take out the "This was the first episode to feature four male chefs." part, as it is done in episodes like 5.3 (the first one to have all female chefs). It provides clarity for the reader and it is pretty remarkable to go 12 seasons, finally deciding to have an episode with all male chefs. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.90.92 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is you don't seem to see this as an encyclopedia, but rather view it as a fan site. We need to be consistent with what is used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It makes clear that romanesco (common use in the US and on Food Network; I routinely buy it by that name at a farmers' market used by professional chefs) is not cauliflower, but is a botanical cousin of both cauliflower and broccoli, which are in turn botanical cousins of one another (making it impossible for any kind of cauliflower to be a variety of broccoli.) BTW, breeds describe animals, not vegetables.
Food Network misuses/mispronounces food terms all the time, particularly on Chopped. Worst offenses include jalapeño (the e is pronounced like an English long a, not an English long e), chard (initial ch- blend is /ch/ like church, not /sh/ like shoe) and caul fat, which is redundant. Caul is fat, so that's like saying fat fat, or as is being done here, like saying dough dough (as is the case with the use of masa dough). This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site; our burden is one of accuracy, not slavish adherence to what's splashed on the screen to simplify viewers' understanding of ingredients. --Drmargi (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four male chefs[edit]

I have removed the note about four male chefs competing for the first time. While it might be something that makes you go "Hmmm", it is not significant, notable, or encyclopedic as the instance where four female chefs competed for the first time. I explained my reasons long ago as to why four female competitors was notable and encyclopedic; the corollary is that four male chefs would not be notable or encyclopedic. Cooking has historically been a male-dominated industry, so to have a male-dominant episode is not all that significant. Moreover, as noted by several previous editors, there are earlier episodes with a similar configuration of competitors. Agent 86 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moreover, I also observed that another editor noted a couple previous competitions where there were four men. (BTW, when you did your good-faith revert, you took out three or four upcoming episodes, which I've restored.) --Drmargi (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that after the fact, but saw that you fixed it. Thanks. Agent 86 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I knew it was an oversight. Of course, our friend is merrily reverting again. It's nothing a little valium won't help you through. --Drmargi (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bears repeating...[edit]

Given the recent unjustified deletions of encyclopedic information, which was performed without taking it to the talk page (apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander), I simply quote some of the statements I have found necessary to repeat over and over again, none of which have been refuted by any policy or logical rationale:

  • “Whether or not something affected the final outcome is not the sole criterion as to whether or not something is trivial.”
  • “…it should be remembered that WP:TRIVIA does not ban, prohibit or discourage trivia qua trivia. That guideline simply discourages trivia sections; in fact, it incourages integrating such information into the body of the article, as is done in this one.”
  • “No cogent, rational, or reasoned basis has been put forth for their exclusion beyond an assertion that they are trivia. They were removed without any justification beyond a general reference to WP:BRD. It should be noted that WP:BRD is not policy, or even a guideline. It is nothing more than an essay.”
  • “WP:BRD clearly states, “BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.””
  • “The essay also clearly sets out that if a user is going to invoke the essay, it should be backed up on the article's talk page. Merely invoking BRP in an edit summary is not enough.”
  • “You keep stating that WP:TRIVIA supports your assertions, yet reading that guideline does not support the conclusions you wish to draw. In fact, WP:TRIVIA runs contrary to your assertions. I have already cited the provisions of the guideline that show it is primarily concerned with trivia sections.”
  • “I also fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE supports your assertions. That provision does not address the contents of any specific article; rather, it addresses whether a topic is encyclopedic and merits an article.”
  • “…there is no exclusionary policy that warrants, mandates, or justifies its removal.”

I should note that I was not the editor who added the information about the youngest-ever competitor, but I certainly concur with the editor who added it that it should be part of the article. In addition, I will add that it is just as encyclopedic to note the youngest-ever competitor as it is to note the first all-female competition, etc. Agent 86 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

episode numbering[edit]

there's two episode 166's in the list. See last episode season 13 (Untrained, Undaunted) and first episode season 14 (Leftovers Overload) GerBNL (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected it up to season 22 GerBNL (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season 26[edit]

It's almost over and no information is listed yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonds775 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator[edit]

Can you revert the edit made by "Tc5050", as there is already a stand-alone article List of Chopped episodes (seasons 1–20). Thank you.

--⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 04:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page is not protected, so you can edit the page yourself. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the page?[edit]

The most recent two episodes weren't updated that much, most recent episode doesn't have the contestants and the episode before that wasn't updated AT ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoleeexe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Add Season 19 and Season 20[edit]

IDK what happened to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechopped (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovechopped: Seasons 1-20 and 21-40 are in companion articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies In Episode Numbering[edit]

The Episode numbering is very different from that used by the Food Network (https://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/chopped/episodes), whom one would have thought would have been the source of record; where did the list editor get their numbers from — Preceding 17:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC) comment added by Chief Old Wrens (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of Chopped episodes (season 41–present). See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Episode_list_titles and my closing comments. No such user (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chopped episodes → List of Chopped episodes (seasons 41–present) – The current title falsely implies that this list has all Chopped episodes, when it only has episodes from season 41 and onward. See also my requests for move on List of Saturday Night Live episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chopped_episodes_(season_41–present)&oldid=1208220202"