Talk:MasterChef (American TV series) season 12

Contestants

No idea if/when there will actually be a press release regarding the contestants, but this video via the official MasterChef YouTube channel seems to be sufficient to create the contestant table for this season, if anyone would like to... A 'competed on' column (or just 'competed', 'original', etc.) should also probably be used to indicate who is returning from what season- likely similar to the column at Hell's Kitchen (American season 18)#Veterans. Magitroopa (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the episode had also aired, does it suffice to also include the contestants who also auditioned but did not get the apron? Might want to reference the articles of the previous seasons for the full names... 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 23:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"MasterChef: Back to Win" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MasterChef: Back to Win has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22 § MasterChef: Back to Win until a consensus is reached. Happily888 (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

SanAnMan continues to incorrectly revert the hatnote to his preferred version. The previous redirect discussion was resolved in the closure that a hatnote should be added because it does use the same name as the American version, so it is appropriate for the hatnote to read that the Australian version was the first/original version of "MasterChef: Back to Win" and incorrect for it to be claimed as just a "similarly-named version", with SanAnMan continually incorrectly claiming, as he did in the redirect discussion and was proved to have been incorrect, that they don't use the same names. Happily888 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

SanAnMan, please actually read the guidelines that you cite, in this case WP:TPNO / WP:TPO. This is neither a personal attack (it doesn't include insults, personal/legal threats or other's personal details), a misrepresentation of another person, asking for personal details, an impersonation of another editor, a claim of being an administrator or a forum post. If a user doesn't want to engage in discussion about a reversion they want to make on an article, don't actually revert it on the article in the first place. Happily888 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The hatnote currently in place was added by me on May 24, 2023. The discussion on renaming the article was closed by admin on June 10, 2023, with the comment "The result of the discussion was keep. Noting the addition of a suitable hatnote.". The "suitable hatnote" was the one currently in place, not your change. It has been discussed previously in the redirect discussion that "MasterChef: Back to Win" and "MasterChef Australia: Back to Win" are two separate shows with two separate articles, and do not have identical titles. Therefore, the MCA article is not the "first/original version of 'MasterChef: Back to Win'", it is instead the first/original version of "MasterChef Australia: Back to Win". Your change of the hatnote to read "the original Australian version" is therefore a false statement. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding of the discussion is flawed. The discussion clearly showed that the title "MasterChef: Back to Win" is also used by the Australian series, hence why it wasn't unambiguous as you had claimed and the necessary addition of the hatnote. It is an absurd claim to continue to make that the title only refers to American series and isn't the original series, when clearly the discussion showed that the Australian series frequently uses that same phrasing as an official title for the series. You do not WP:OWN articles; in Tamzin's closure they refer to "a suitable hatnote" not "the [status quo] suitable hatnote" or "your preferred suitable hatnote". Happily888 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The hatnote in place at the time was suitable. Others could be suitable too. So the RfD close takes no position on what hatnote is used, just that some should be. Personally, speaking as just another editor, I don't see a need for similarly-named or original here. Brevity is important in a hatnote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)