Talk:Hell's Kitchen (American TV series) season 6

Source

I don't know if this is exactly like the Press Release but you can use this as a source:

http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/RealityTV/Articles/090624_hells_kitchen_6_contestants_AD

Thanks for the source! It's not just like the press release, but it does work for the chefs. Also, I remember reading that this season will turn the Signature Dish challenge into a team challenge. If I can find something for that, then I think I'm set. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Names

I'm keeping a talk page section about full names. If anyone finds a chef's full name, please help me out. Any help is appreciated and welcomed! For now, these are the only full names I know of (I also added web sources for the names here, so as to keep track. I'll only add the full names to the page when all the names have been found, but if anyone wishes to be bold, adding them won't upset me:

• Amanda Davenport [1]
• Amanda Moore (Tek) (Moore is per [2]. Amanda is confirmed elsewhere, but not on a reliable source)
• Andy Husbands [3]
• Anthony D'Alessandro (Tony) (Amanda's source)
• Connie Jackson (Lovely) (Tek's source)
• David Cordio (Louie) (Andy's source)
• Jim McGloin (Lovely's source. Formerly on Andy's source, but that part of the article is now on their archives)
• Kevin Cottle ([4]. Was formerly on Andy's source, but has become archived. The source is a bit of a stretch)
• Suzanne Schlicht (as given on the Pius XI HS article: confirmed online, but no reliable source exists...yet)
• Joseph Tinnelly
• Vincent 'Van' Hurd
• David 'Dave' Levey
• Tennille Middleton
• Andy Husbands
• Melinda Meaney
• Robert Hesse

Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I found the full names on this site: [5]. Go to Contestent photos, and I've modified the contestant list. Tahna Los (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the names, they really help!

Season 6 Red Team Sous Chef: Heather West?

I recently saw a post at Fox's boards saying that Heather West (Season 2 winner) posted to her Twitter and says that she is to take Gloria Felix's place as the sous chef of the red team. Sadly, Twitter isn't much of a reliable source, but if a reliable source can be found, should it be added to this page, to the Season 2 page, or to the Hell's Kitchen main, or any combination? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Or you can wait until the first show airs in another week. That will be as reliable a source as you can get. It will require some fancy rewrites on the main HK page to align Gloria and MaryAnn in nice consise sentences. SpikeJones (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The season premiere pretty much had it confirmed that Gloria is no longer working the show. Well, at the very least, for now, Heather is the sous chef assigned to the red kitchen whilst Scott is still there for the blue. KRam41 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert from season 5

I am watching hell's kitchen, and chef ramsey just asked robert from season 5 to come back. should he be added to the cast? --JereMerr 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)--JereMerr 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He should be, since he is competing. At the time of this post, the elimination chart had reflected this already. KRam41 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Zero Entrees: First???

I'm not sure what Gordon meant, but the first dinner service wasn't a first in that no entrees left the red kitchen: the first service of Season 2's Red Team also ended this way and, if I remember correctly, the next episode of that season had the blue team doing the same. However, it looked like no appetizers left, which would make that a record. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he watches the show -- he was likely speaking off the cuff, as he likes to do in most instances. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph's Elimination

The elimination chart currently shows Joseph being eliminated in Ep. 602 - whilst it makes sense logically, I think it should be listed under Ep. 603 since that was the reason of no elimination. KRam41 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. The chart should display in which TV episode the contestant was eliminated. Joseph should be noted as being disqualified for his confrontation, and maybe a note for Tony indicating that his elimination was held over from the previous episode because of the cliffhanger. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Retracted. After thinking about it, the chart should show after (or during) which dinner service the contestant was eliminated. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chart colors

Are we back to having colors and footnotes for every single thing in the episode? Why do we have the episode synopsis when we have a chart so detailed all it's missing are quotes from the episode? We need to re-establish what the chart is for. I submit the chart is to find out who won, who lost, and who got eliminated. If they want to know why Tony and Joseph got eliminated they can read the article. Padillah (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at previous seasons, the footnotes have been a normal part of the chart, and so I have added them back with a few modifications. However, I do agree that the colors are a bit out of control, and so I've simplified the color scheme.--Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And if you look back at the talk pages I've been trying to get it to change for three seasons now. But every time I make any headway either I get overrun with fanbois or the season ends and I'm sloughed off until next season when I get the response "If you look back they did this last season" (as if we can't change). We are using arguably one of the most dynamic mediums in the known world, I'm sure we can find a way to change this to a summary that more appropriately summarizes the information. A summary does not need to be a complete recap. In fact, my argument is, the more data presented in the summary chart the less helpful it actually is. Padillah (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Touché! --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I'm looking at the chart I notice there is a color and a footnote for Josephs elimination. How many different ways do we need to point this information out? This is a bit out of hand. Padillah (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and changed. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that would deserve a footnote rather than waste a color on that one specific case. In truth I feel this is a "Contestant Quit" situation with a footnote regarding the confrontation. Joseph is the one that stepped down, he's the one that took his jacket off, he's the one that forced the issue. Confrontation aside this is no different than Coi taking herself out due to injury (or Dave if you believe the promos). Padillah (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is exactly what I did before Azumanga1 reverted it, calling the simplification "unnecessary". I wonder if Azu even looked at this talk page. I put Joseph's elimination in the same color as a normal elimination. You're right. We don't need a different color for the method of elimination (except medical reasons), or even the method of nomination. I hate that light green for people nominated by Ramsay used in previous seasons. Now, whether the Joseph scenario was a "Contestant Quit" or "Eliminated by Ramsay" situation can be debated for a long time. Joseph took the jacket off, but Ramsay said "Get out." --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert as well has a footnote and a specific color just for returning from last season. Do we really think that is going to become common enough that we need to set aside a color to call it out every week? This is getting ridiculous. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and changed. Robert's gray box in episode 1 should be enough to indicate he was not part of the competition during the first service. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• While I agree that the chart was a little out of hand, I believe we should still indicate when members of the team act as raw bar/waiters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.112.19 (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Why? How is that as important as who got eliminated? I guess if I had to say I'd establish the question "who got nominated and who got eliminated?" as the inclusion line for information in the list. If it's as important as who got nominated then we can include it. Otherwise it's no longer a summary. Padillah (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a chart I can call a SUMMARY. Simple. Clean. IN or OUT. If the reader needs to know why or how they can read the episode summary at the bottom. Padillah (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right on, man. But just watch. Azumanga will likely revert it like he did here -> [[6]] Now, how about those other seasons? --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-participant Color

I like the effort to generalize this status but I think we need more than one participant in two episodes. Non-participation is definitely significant enough to mention, in the context of the competition. It's rare enough that it doesn't quite make it to a stand-alone color for me. The footnote suffices for now. Padillah (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The chart (and subsequent footnotes) is not to indicate activites that occured during the course of the episode that led to someone participating (or not) in an elimination. That should be for the episode summary. The progression chart can accurately say that someone was not eliminated (with the below summary saying why). Otherwise, we'll be left with footnotes galore (possibly).SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Padillah. Robert’s absence and the reason for it are significant and rare enough for a footnote though not a separate color. If we deal with anomalies on an individual basis we need not worry about the chart becoming too psychedelic. Not every deviation will require its own color or footnote.Tlatseg (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't commenting on colors. The chart doesn't need to say that Robert was "OUT", which is a misnomer compared to "WIN" or "LOSE". He was still a member of the blue team, and was not nominated for elimination. Details surrounding his actual participation do not add anything to a casual observer looking at the chart, and are best left for the episode summary. Similarly, a "n/a" entry (or even a blank entry) for epi 1 is appropriate there as well. SpikeJones (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Team Challenge award in episode 5

It says they went dogfighting with the US Thunderbirds, but I'm almost certain they went flying with a civilian company called Air Combat (aircombat.com), which is in no way connected to the Armed Forces, or the Thunderbirds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.198.232 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I can remember is one saying "Let's get into Thuderbird formation" which is simply the really close formation created and stylised by The Thunderbirds. It should in no way suggest that the team was the Thunderbirds. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Win/Loss Section

I could be wrong on this, but it looks like the win and loss section is wrong. The girls/Red Team won once or twice, didn't they? 67.161.142.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

The win/loss section in the chart is for the service. The Red Team has not yet won a service (though in week 2 there was no winners). OTOH, the red team has won a few of the *challenges*, like making the sausage. (and maybe one more that I can't remember off the top of my head. The challenges aren't reflected in the chart.Naraht (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

editing

I'm not about to figure out who is responsible for the grammar and spelling mistakes -- please capitalize proper nouns only and mind your apostrophes. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP is not censured but TV is. (or, how to quote a bleeped out phrase)

OK, right, wrong, or indifferent TV is bleeped out. With that said there is nothing we can hang our assertion that a certain word was said behind such bleeps (that being there function after all). So how do we quote something that has been bleeped out? Sociologically we have a good idea of what was said but technically in WP that is speculation. Where does that leave us? Padillah (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:F*** it says we should "indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]"." --Wean0r (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. A MOS guideline. Can't get much better without a policy behind it. So, if we can agree on "[censorship preserved]" I think we have an answer. What say you all? Padillah (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[sic] is shorter, easier.SpikeJones (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's plain enough to the reader that what we are preserving is the bleeps, not some spelling mistake? (which I suppose we can't technically preserve in spoke word, can we?) I also wish [censorship preserved] had a back tag (like fact tags) that explained the situation better. Padillah (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert's chopping block history

The page and Robert both claimed that he has never been on the chopping block and/or has no history. However, he has: he was nominated by Ramsay for elimination the round before the black team unification last season, when Ramsay eliminated Carol and he may have been indicated the next episode (the former, however, is reliable). It's not the first time a contestant made an erroneous claim, as Danny, during the same season, claimed he was Hell's Kitchen's youngest contestant, despite Coi being 22 (Danny, at the time, was 23 according to HK's bio) and the possibility that Giacomo was younger than that at 21 (his HK bio gives for his age "Unknown"). Also, black team members get montages regardless of when they get eliminated (Gio and Matt were both eliminated before the final five, but both were members and got montages). The only eliminated black team member to not receive a montage was Josh, likely due to his inpromptu elimination. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tek, Robert and Jim footage in episode 8

Although former contestants Tek, Robert and Jim can be seen at certain points in this episode, it is by no means certain that this is reused footage. It is highly possible they could have been brought in by Chef Ramsay to do minor background work to assist the remaining contestants because he wanted a excellent service. At this time I see no reason to include this note.Tlatseg (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't guess at anything seen in background during editing. Previously, when Dave hurt his hand, he was seen working at the dessert station before he was shown "returning" to HK. Unless the show specifically says what's going on, we can only assume that we are seeing editing continuity mistakes. Comments on such items should be removed from the episodes summary, and if *proven to be notable* can be added in a separate section documenting, with proper cites and time codes (NOT WP:OR), why HK relies on airing things out of sequence. SpikeJones (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This information counts as "bloopers" and it should be included. Why do you think it should not be included, whether or not it's reused footage? There has never been an editing "mistake" this bad on Hell's Kitchen. Once a contestant is out, they are not supposed to appear again. Something tells me the original poster for this topic works for FOX, and FOX obviously doesn't want people discussing this.99.6.143.133 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to assume anything. Just write about what has been seen by people watching that show. Maybe the producers of HK will give a comment about it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.95.90 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic, and has no affect on the show's outcome. It's not the first time that reality TV has reused footage or aired segments out of sequence (have you watched Big Brother? They'll play clips weeks out of sequence as if they had just happened). Amazing Race will film the start of the race multiple times in order to ensure they have proper camera shots. If you would like to start your own blooper website, feel free to do so. But there is no need to include it in what is supposed to be a concise show summary page. SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the appearance of the three previously eliminated contestants is of minor trivial significance and contributes nothing to the article and should not be includedTlatseg (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

V Lounge or Opaque?

I remember Chef Ramsay saying they were going to "Opaque", where did the mention of "V Lounge" come from? Padillah (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume this was from the 8th episode; when the red team arrived, there was a big awning in front of the venue that said "V Lounge" -- a big, stylised yellow "V" with a black background. -- azumanga (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like "V Lounge" is the name of the building, and "Opaque" is the dark dining room there. [7] --Wean0r (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "Opaque" is what happens every Friday and Saturday at the V Lounge. Thanks guys. Padillah (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Best of the Best

Best of the Best (BoB) has been used in the past seasons, usually when they get to the black team. But I'd say leave it out until it gets used. --Wean0r (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.untill it shows up there is no need to use it.Tlatseg (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to hear the term on the show this season so that gives it an even better reason not to use it. Warriorshockey1 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added invisible notes.Tlatseg (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Separating the teams into red and blue.

In the articles for the first three seasons, the teams have been separated into red and blue. Is there any reason or objection why it cannot be done for this season?Tlatseg (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because basically, as has already been seen this season, this can change over time. If I'm not mistaken the past articles only delineate the teams when they merge them into the black team near the end. At that point there can (obviously) be no more switching teams and the last team a person was on is immutable. Padillah (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The other pages are wrong and should be corrected. The progress chart lists their last-known team color and is adequate for our purposes here. Per Padillah, as teams change over time, there is no use to keeping a separate team listing in an encyclopedia beyond what's already shown in the chart. (Technically, as the show is already filmed, the cast are no longer on *any* team.) SpikeJones (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked back to the earlier versions of seasons one and two going back to August 2007 and February 2008 for season three. The sections are separated into blue and red team sections (outlining who the initial teams are), below that is a black teams section and below that is the final service section. The chart outlines final teams, not the initial teams. With the exception of the first season, in all succeeding seasons the teams are separated by gender. And though I understand the teams do mix and merge as the seasons move on, I feel that separating them into the initial blue and red teams make it easier for the casual reader to comprehend. Also because the preceding seasons have been in that format for such a long time, they should not be reverted.Tlatseg (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(consolidating discussion from Talk:Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S._season_6)#Separating_the_teams_into_red_and_blue. here.

for over one year now, the section on the contestants has been organized ab such- blue team, red team, black team (top five)and final service separated into descriptions of Heather's team and Virginia's team.I see no reason to change this organization at this time. Tlatseg (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As you pointed out that some season pages (like Season One) were alphabetical and others were not, I went and corrected all those pages for you so that the CONTESTANT section was exactly that - a listing of the contestants. This got all the season pages to be consistent in formatting with one another. Doesn't matter that a page had been that way for over a year; it was corrected to a more readable, usable, encyclopedic state. The progress table shows a contestant's progress from team to team, along with winner/loser info. Episode summary is for listing which former chefs come back to assist in final challenge, no need to repeat that info in the contestant section. Including Scott and Heather/Mary Ann/Gloria as a "contestant on the Blue/Red" teams was just silly, as they were not contestants OR team leaders. SpikeJones (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do Tony's and Joseph's eliminations go?

An anon brings up a good point - where should we put Tony and Joseph's elimination in the episode chart? Technically they wee eliminated at the beginning of 603. But that was just a gimmick to get ratings, they were eliminated as a result of the elimination ceremony in 602. Either way leaves a blank spot. I say leave them in 603 since that's the episode their eliminations showed on. So, any ideas? Padillah (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are placed in the chart in the same place the episode summary kicks them out - in 603. SpikeJones (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave that part of the chart where it is. They were eliminated in episode 603. It has been like that for some time now.Tlatseg (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added an invisible note requesting that users no longer move Tony and Joseph's elimination two episode 602.Tlatseg (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the mentions in the descriptions should remain as they are, as their eliminations did not happen until the next episode. However, in the progress chart, their eliminations should be included in episode 2, as they did, technically, follow the service in episode 2, but preceded the actual gameplay for episode 3. -- azumanga (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Azumanga1, it is confusing now and can give the impression that they were eliminated after the third service, until you read the text below. IMO we should move them back to under 602. Either way, I feel a footnote is appropriate that they were eliminated in 603 for the service in 602. --Wean0r (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a footnote or further explanation in the progress table. Either they were eliminated in 603 or they weren't. WHY and WHEN they were eliminated goes into the episode summary section for those looking for further information. SpikeJones (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the charts again and reading the comments by azumanga and Wean0r I think it will probably not be a bad idea to move Joseph and Tony's pollination over to 602 on the chart along with tersely worded footnotes explaining why. There should also be a tersely worded footnote to episode 603 on the chart explaining that no one was eliminated that episode and why. It need not clutter up the board. These articles are mainly for the casual reader and should be made as easy for them to understand as possible. Hopefully we can come to a general consensus soon.Tlatseg (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And to the casual reader, the chart must match the episode summaries. If they are listed in the chart as being eliminatated in 602, then that's fine - make sure the summary says so. If they were eliminated in 603, that's fine too if the summary matches. There is no need for a footnote for the chart if the summary is accurate. The casual reader will see on the chart that so-and-so was eliminated, then will read the summary to know the details surrounding it. Why over-complicate things with unnecessary footnotes and 8x10 color photos with arrows and lines and a description on the back of each one? SpikeJones (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But still, what if the show pulls this "To Be Continued" stunt again and eliminate one (or two) contestants again at the top of the next episode, and again following the next service in the same episode? While Joseph and Tony were eliminated on the third episode, the elimination was part of the second service -- on that account, such an elimination would be seen in the chart under the second episode, but described in the descriptions as part of the third episode. Because of this complexity, this is where it is not as cut and dry as the other episodes. I say to just "play as the ball lays" and present the information as it is. -- azumanga (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they say "to be continued", as it is a series - in essence, *every* episode is a continuation of the previous one. "to be continued" does not affect the number of the episode where the contestant was shown to be eliminated. Ramsey has eliminated more than one contestant in a single episode previously; the progress box shows two eliminations for episode X, and the episode summary for episode X explains what happened. Erase from your mind that eliminations MUST happen after service, as they can occur at any time during the course of the show. The progress chart is there to merely show which episode had a contestant eliminated and what color their team was at the time (along with nominations and other cruft). Episodic details are irrelevant to that chart. SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Spike, what is the episode number of the show where Ramsay said "get out of Hells Kitchen"? How is this any different than the eliminations that happen mid-service? They didn't make it to the elimination after service either. They were told to leave in 603. Padillah (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hesse

Hi. I just saw the first episode. Robert definitely NOT lost 55 pounds. Seems more like he gained 55 or more. Or was my screen out of order? Regards, Thalon from the German WP. 84.144.115.140 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sabrina retrospective episode 10 .

Just like Robert in episode seven Sabrina was also given a retrospective montage even though she was not one of the final six. Should this be noted as Robert's was.Tlatseg (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that this dilutes the notability of Robert's montage. If they are going to make this more and more common then it's going to happen more and more often. I'm beginning to think the restriction is more about not having enough stock footage than being special in any way. These two examples support that. Padillah (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point. It's extremely unlikely that montages could be made for Louie, Melinda, Tony, and Joseph due to the fact that they were eliminated soon after the show started (plus the fact that Joseph's elimination was too inpromptu. Plus, Fox.com seems strangely interested in nullifying any mentions of Mr. Tinnelly outside his profile. Inpromptu elimination was also, likely, the reason why Josh Wahler had no montage in Season 3, but this is not provable.) Robert, however, was in two different seasons, so Fox had plenty of footage at their disposal. Sabrina, also, had stayed in long enough for plenty of footage to be shot. As it stands, Robert's is worth mentioning, whereas Sabrina's is just slightly notable (not enough so for a mention for the reasons Padillah mentioned). Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

TOC or chart links

I would like to have somewhere high on the page have links to the episode descriptions below. I see two possibilities: One would be to have a table of contents, the other would be to have links from the episode numbers at the top of the chart to sections below. For example, the 608 in the chart would link down to episode 8. Which do people prefer (or current no link)?Naraht (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Verb Tense

I'd like to ask that the verb tense be consistent throughout the article. Since the article is being read after the fact, I'd like to see all verbs in past tense. It's very jarring to go from present perfect to past and back, through a whole range of tenses, in the space of a paragraph.Jmac1962 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The only excuse I can see for this type of behavior is that people are trying to scoop others and editing as the show happens (thus present perfect). Then as others add or elucidate after the fact you get past and past imperfect mixed in. I agree that we need to edit the sections with an eye towards a single verb tense: Past. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will undertake to do so. Jmac1962 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Separate color for Tennille's elimination in episode 13

someone has tried to give Tennille a separate color for her elimination because she was eliminated directly by Chef Ramsay without taking any nominations. I see no reason to do this and have added an invisible note.Tlatseg (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What about giving it the green color for Ramsay's nominations? I'm thinking similar to how Colleen and Carol were eliminated in season 5. --Wean0r (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That I would have no problem with. That's not even a technicallity, it's what happened. There was no nomination, Chef Ramsay singled her out. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

chart changes for seasons one through five

I am putting this here instead of the main Hells kitchen talk page because this is the one that is most currently active. If somebody wants to move it to a different talk page later please be my guest.

Someone has changed the charts on the previous seasons so that instead of saying win/lose for the final two contestants it now says winner/runner-up. And though runner-up may be more politically correct, I see no reason to change a long established convention without some discussion. At the moment I have not reverted them because I am too damn tired.Tlatseg (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, there is no "runner-up" on Hell's Kitchen. The winner gets a job and some money, the rest get a thank you card and some parting gifts. In other words, they lost this particular competition. They are a loser. Not in the colloquial sense but in the very real and concrete sense. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Padillah (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To anon 76.98.120.134

Please understand: Hell's Kitchen is a competition, and someone must lose. This has nothing to do with personal feelings, it's simply there is no prize or recognition for NOT winning Hell's Kitchen. The competition has a single winner and everyone else has lost. Padillah (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Dave deserved his own page?

seems to me a bit premature,but I'm not really sure.Heather,Christina and Danny from seasons two, four and five each have their own page. Michael and Rock from seasons one and three do not.Tlatseg (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They all fail WP:BLP1E (being notable for just one event). The redirect to the main page that they are associated with is enough. Besides, they need to have unbiased and unrelated 3rd-party coverage of activity outside of their show appearances. There is nothing on their individual pages that cannot be merged into the articles for the shows they won on (this holds true for 99.9% of contestants on HK, Survivor, BB, Amazing Race, etc) SpikeJones (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

dave no longer at the araxi???

interesting bit of news regarding dave on the araxi website. Wasn't this supposed to be like a year contract???

The winner, Dave Levey was part of the kitchen brigade under acclaimed Executive Chef James Walt until the end of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. The team at Araxi wishes him all the best in his future endeavours and looks forward to welcoming him back this summer for a visit. http://www.araxi.com/hellskitchen.html Tlatseg (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy

Andy did not leave voluntarily. They nominated him to go up and then chef ramsley made him leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.22 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Joint filming of Seasons 6 & 7

I am wondering if Seasons 6 & 7 were filmed at the same time. I ask because at the end of the season 7 finale, You could see Season 6 winner Dave Levey walk through the restaurant. He was wearing a chefs coat, & Grey beanie hat, and still had the cast on on his left arm, which should have healed by now.--Subman758 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave can be seen on a replay of the show at hulu.com [8] at precisely 42 Minutes 50 Seconds. You can clearly see his cast covering his left arm down to and including his left thumb.--Subman758 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting there, at 42:26, you can see that Holli has been added to the Wall of Fame already...Naraht (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is actually Dave on the bottom. Because the six smaller pictures are surrounding the larger one, and I think the larger one is Chef Ramsay.--Subman758 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Profanity in contestant/Ramsay quotations

I think it would be wise to leave out direct quotations that contain profanity as Wikipedia is a family website. Instead, such quotations should be described using neutral language to transition the train of thought along.

For example:

"Tensions reached a boiling point wheb Ramsay shouted, 'I ask the f__king questions, you give the f__king answers!"

can be reworded into

Tensions arose when Ramsay angrily demanded Joseph follow his commands without any sense of disrespect or attitude.

This helps Wikipedia stay family-friendly and more professional. 2600:1000:B14E:DFCC:FCA8:1D94:563D:F686 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and isn't a family website. It's an encyclopedia. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)