Talk:List of Iron Chef America episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Oh, the colors

Do we really need more than 2-3 colors to highlight the stats? Adding an additional color for ties was OK< but the individual colors for the Chefs are a great cause for eyestrain.--Bedford 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The colors make it easier to track Iron Chef wins but I guess you're right... --Destron Commander 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

New Season

There are 24 new challengers in the 3rd season, including the rematch with Roberto Donna. Someone should add it to the stats page, im not familiar with working with tables. The list of the challengers is on the food network website. There are 25 people listed, but two of them are a pair, like the Too Hot Tamales were.

Stub

I think we have enough on here to remove the "stub" status of this article. Everyone else agree?--Bedford 00:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --SCSI Commando 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Throwdown

Anyone have win/loss stats on Bobby Flay's Throwdown show? David Bergan 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Table additions

The table should have the date each episode first aired, and instead of having a note reference every so often, it should just have a "notes" column at the end of the table to mention anything notable that happened in the episode. VegaDark 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Would adding judge information for each episode be considered "complete" or "overkill"? PhilDeCube (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Overkill. And it's too far along to reliably gather it all, leaving gaps. We had a discussion like this about adding scores once. They mean a lot in context but nothing as numbers on paper. Likewise, the so-called "notable judges" list was deleted (by me) because the notion of notable was so arbitrary as to be meaningless. Stuff like that is a lot of fun when you're watching, but doesn't mean much on the page. Drmargi (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not overkill. Its quality, relevent, useful, verifiable information. You are right that it may be tough to go back and do in hindsight... but that is true for a lot of things on wikipedia. Kjbrunson (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the spoiler columns be hidden?

In the list of battles, is there programming that would allow the "secret ingredient" and most especially "winner" columns to be hidden until revealed by the user? (I am thinking of the kind of feature like in the table heading of various templates [e.g., Template:AmericanMorningHosts], but applied to a column rather than the whole table [template].) PeterJ 70.53.128.164 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Rename

I'd like to suggest this article be renamed to List of Iron Chef America episodes as the bulk of the article is formed by listing of each episodes with the contestant and results. This would also bring the list more in line with the Television project and allow it to be expanded to include DVD releases and the like. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. AyaK (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, but suggesting things sometimes isn't enough, you sometimes need to take the Wikipedia suggestion and Be Bold and do it DemosDemon 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to WP:BOLD, Help:Moving a page DemosDemon 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename is done and links updated on the articles that link to it :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information listed!

In season 5 episode 10 it states Cat Cora and Paula Deen won which was not the case! It was infact Tyler Florence and Robert Irvine that won! This should really be fixed in fairness to the true winners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.174.151 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, Cat and Paula won. Whether or not you agree with the decision is a matter best discussed elsewhere. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• What channel were you watching? I saw that episode both when it originally aired and this past December during the re-airing for the holiday. Florence and Irvine lost to Cora and Puala. -- annonymous 2/20/10 5:38 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.2.113 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Masters Results?

Why was the Battle of the Masters miniseries results table removed?

The Battle of the Masters was a special episode and not really part of the main series. Its discussed in the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct; Food Network shows these episodes as part of the main series. On January 6, Food Network re-aired the Morimoto v. Puck battle (IANS03) as part of its Iron Chef America repeats for the day. The episodes are coded in the Iron Chef America series, although as season nul (zero). I don't think we should be in the position of trying to tell Food Network that it has incorrectly classified episodes as part of the Iron Chef America series. Thus, I have re-added the "Battle of the Masters" episodes to the list of episodes. - AyaK (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If we want to call it part of the regular series, the amount of detail on it should be removed from the main article. I had removed it again, but I've put it back, formatting it properly and listing it as Season 0 with a paragraph intro. The other option for a header could be Pilot: Battle of the Masters. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The numbering scheme is consistent with calling it Season 0, and this seems like a good solution to me. Thanks for all your work on this. - AyaK (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding ICA Scores and Judges

I've reverted the column adding scores to Season 7 of ICA. To date, there has been no activity building the collection of scores, and there is no way that I can find to source them other than the episodes themselves. That alone is problematic. But presented as they are, the scores are pretty much meaningless. There is no discussion or referencing of the range or breakdown of scores needed for a reader to understand them, no discussion of how scoring is done (i.e. three judges, etc.) or any other information needed to render them meaningful. As they are, they're just two numbers. Moreover, the editor setting up the scores column added one solely to the Season 7 table, with one set of scores, noting on his talk page that he "didn't have time" to add other scores, passing the responsibility to make a substantive edit off to the wiki as collaborative. While his point that a wiki is a collaborative process is well taken, what was added isn't sufficient. One score on one table when we are constantly seeing reruns (including Season 6's Cora v. Oringer tonight) doesn't make sense. It's my opinion that until such time as an editor is prepared to set up a) a score column for each season; b) add a substantive number of scores upon setting up the columns and c) write a discussion of scoring in sufficient depth to make the scores meaningful (and I doubt a display of the final score alone will be adequate even with that discussion) addition of a score column is something I think adds little or nothing to the article, and lacks any measure of notability. Drmargi (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores Added

I went ahead and added scores to every episode, though two I couldn't find: Flay vs. Vinczencz (Citrus) and Symon vs. Kwaku-Dongo (Artichoke) - anyone who can find out, much appreciated. Also, in notes for episodes with skewed scoring (i.e. episodes with four judges, etc) explanations were put in the footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.41.38 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. While the scores are possibly interesting to regular viewers, there is no discussion of what they mean or how the break down provided, requiring the reader be familiar with the scoring procedure. See my comments above regarding notability and how the scores should be presented to make them understandable to any reader. But frankly, between the notability issue and the question of whether scores rise above the level of fancruft, it's tough to justify their inclusion. That said, I recognize the hard work put in to include them! Drmargi (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ICJ and ICA both post W-L records for the Iron Chef competing before every episode. My take is that if the producers of ICJ and ICA think it matters, so should we IMO. --Cshashaty (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Win/loss records and outcomes of the battles, yes. Including those make perfect sense, and are not at issue. But the scores for individual battles, especially minus any explanation of what they mean? They are both meaningless to anyone who does not watch the show frequently enough to be familiar with the scoring procedure and scoring distribution, and of questionable notability at best. Drmargi (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The scores are important information, allowing Iron Chef Fans (of which there are on average 1.5 million each week) to see how well a contestant or chef did in a particular "battle" (e.g. which contestant beat a chef the worse?), and they aren't available anywhere else. The last time this was discussed, the argument was that we shouldn't add "some" scores until "all" of the scores were available. Now that they are all available, they should be added. --Paul (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't here to serve ICA "fans" but rather to contain information to an encyclopedic standard; in fact, by commenting the scores will appeal principally to fans, you serve to reinforce my position that as they stand, they are nothing but fancruft. You need a fan Wiki if you're interested in what serving fans. If the information isn't notable and accessible to all users, it's not suitable for inclusion. If you'll reread the discussion above, the issue was more than just the largely empty tables added to some of the battles before. The notability issue was discussed then as well. Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the reason for exclusion. Does having the information "hurt" the page in any way? No. It's simply a table of information. For some reason there's a small group of people who are adamantley dead set against the inclusion of scores, and for the life of me it makes no sense as to what the reason is. I put a lot of work into researching / collecting that information, and someone just decided that because "THEY" didn't deem it worthy that no one else should have that information. It doesn't matter if it's a fanwiki or a regular wiki or whatever. It's just... information. Whether it appeals to fans or regular users is irrelevant - it's still just information. If a "regular" user wants information on the scoring procedure, said information is available on the Iron Chef America main page. There is simply no valid reason NOT to include what is merely statistical information, information that may be of interest to some readers - fans or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.41.38 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Have re-added the "final score" column (and fixed numbering on footnotes while I was at it), as I haven't heard a solid argument yet as to why a column of simple statistical information should be excluded. If one wishes to claim they're out of context without a breakdown, they should do the work the original editor who added the scores did and find out said breakdowns and add them. In the meantime, some information - even if you, personally don't think it's enough - is better than none. Counter-arguments of "notability" fail for mere fact that the information is, quite simply, notable - has anyone gone to the page looking for the information? Yes? Then it's notable. Those overly concerned with the "notability" of information might wish to start with the footnotes, where we find that "Zakarian appears regularly as a judge on Chopped." or "One of Amanda Freitag's sous chefs was Ariane Duarte, a contestant on the fifth season of Top Chef." - etc, etc, etc - information that has nothing to do with the show itself, whereas the scores most certainly do. Obviously more than one reader has looked for score information, and more than one person here in the discussion has found it valuable - so why anyone would want to exclude it is beyond me. Is this information being kept secret for some reason? I didn't think so. Chefsuffolk (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, Chefsuffolk/148.4.41.38 (since you appear to be one and the same, based on your comments and edit summary) please read WP:CONSENSUS. Once a discussion is initiated, you wait for consensus regarding an edit that has been reverted and is under discussion before restoring it. Until then, reverting it is considered an act that could lead to an edit war. To that end, I've reverted back to the version that was in place when I opened this discussion. Please leave it that way. Second, you might want to review the criteria for notability as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which addresses addition of indiscriminate information to an article. This article isn't a repository for every bit of information you can gather and insert. It needs to be both notable and accessible to all readers (not just "fans" as argued further up.) If you want to serve fans of a show, you can take it all to a fan-wiki. Drmargi (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I continue to believe this material should be included. First, to address the arguments directed at me, above... My use of the number of people who watch ICA was to illustrate that this information was of wide interest and would be useful to more than a small handfull of hard-core "fans." The argument that only fans would be interested in this data, fails with the first example I look at: myself. I hardly ever watch the show, but never-the-less am interested in the scores, as they allow a deeper analysis of the won/loss records (which Drmargi seems to think are "allowable"), and also allows an analysis of the strength of the challenger chefs compared to other challengers for the same Iron Chef. As to "If the information isn't notable and accessible to all users, it's not suitable for inclusion" first, more than one person here thinks the info is notable, and only one thinks it isn't; second, the information would be accessible if it were here, it isn't accessible if one editor insists on excising it (ask yourself what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? Answer: encyclopedic); third, if the scores are "fancruft", why aren't the won/lost records and the very list of Iron Chef America episodes "fancruft"? Why not just delete the whole article as trivia? This discussion has been going on for months with multiple people working on adding this information, and one editor resisting and coming up with new objections as old ones are taken care of. I would suggest that at this point a better Wikipedia standard for study than those mentioned above is WP:OWN. It takes more than one editor to have an edit war, thus accusations of edit-warring are somewhat disingenuous coming from the editor who really is acting against consensus. I am restoring the scores, as their inclusion in this article reflects the consensus I see on this talk page.--Paul (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I would suggest you moderate the use of accusations such as ownership which is easy to throw around and hard to prove, as well as questionably WP:CIVIL. Consensus is not a vote, or majority rules. It's an agreement among involved editors, and until we have such an agreement, you keep talking. Attempting to pre-empt that process by unilaterally declaring we have consensus won't cut the mustard, I'm afraid. Drmargi (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid agree with Drmargi. I believe the scores may be important to some people so they will know how much someone won or lost, however, I think the scores are a miniscule detail of the article. The current information that is in the article (Episode, Show #, the Iron Chef, the Challenger Iron Chef, the Secret ingredient(s), and the Winner) are all of great importance to the episode. The scores, however, are more of a miniscule detail and I beleive that they might overwhelm the article, if they are added to all 130-some episodes of ICA. I appreciate your work in finding all of the scores, but I just don't think they are suitable for the article. --DragonofFire (龙火) 05:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly -- where do we draw the line? Yeah, the scores are interesting in a fancrufty way (IF someone writes a reasonable discussion of what they mean) but are they notable? Next thing you know, we're listing the individual dishes. It's just not that important to know who did the scoring, or what the scores were. The critical things are the competitors, the ingredient, and who won. Drmargi (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it, excatly, that Drmargi gets to decide where the line is drawn? You say there's danger of an edit war, but you're the ONLY one who keeps reverting the edits, while scores have been added by more than one person in the past. You say there must be consensus, but why don't you wait for consensus before removing the scores? Why does consensus only apply one way, but not against your opinion? In the end, I think we should err on the side of more information, always. This isn't bogging down the page, and the slippery slope argument that if you "allow" this (as if it's up to YOU to allow or disallow something, because you're the Grand Arbiter of all things Iron Chef America) then next thing you know there'll be lists of dishes, judges, etc., and other information that you personally don't find "notable" enough for inclusion simply doesn't bear out, since no one has done any of that. On the other hand, scores have come up before - again, because YOU PERSONALLY decided that they weren't notable, even as multiple others have posted them. While it was understandable your deleting the partial score list back in '09 because it only insluded Season 7, this most recent anti-score tirade on your part is, frankly, ludicrous and apparantley against popular opinion, as now I'll be the third to person to post them and you, still, are the only person to delete them. Again, we should err on the side of PROVIDING INFORMATION, and allow the information to stand while discussion ensues. To DragonFire and yourself, perhaps it's a "miniscule detail" - but just because YOU don't find it notable, or feel there's no proper context / explanation, doesn't mean that someone else won't come to this page looking for said information or glad to find it. In the meantime, the information should stand because we should always be on the side of MORE information and LESS consorship. And if there's an "edit war" we should be clear that it's your instigation that's causing it, since thus far you're the ONLY user to delete the information, while multiple others have added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.227.227 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really very simple: there is a procedure here that's called consensus. There's no agreement here, therefore the edit stands at the point where discussion began, with the scores removed. Please review WP:CONSENSUS if you're unclear how it works. Moreover, I'm not the only person who does not agree with inclusion of the scores. I do find it interesting, however, that we seem to have a succession of IP editors who have rarely if ever edited on this page suddenly able to revert edits correctly, know to engage in discussion, and have such vigorous positions on this issue.

You might also want to review WP:CIVIL, since most of your argument is not focused on the issue, but rather on me. Drmargi (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

However, there will never be "consensus" when person X believes one thing, and person(s) Y believe the opposite. There is no situation under which this issue will reach consensus. You might as well ask for consensus among pro-lifers and pro-choicers, or consensus among creationists and evolutionary biologists. You cannot have consensus when the two options are mutually exclusive, which is what we have here. There will never be consensus about this issue, pure and simple. So, it must be decided - should the information stand? I firmly believe that more information is always preferable to less, that there's never harm in additional information as long as it's presented in a clear and precise manner (which this was) - so perhaps it's time to bring in dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.227.227 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, the edit stands at the point where it's removed, where the consensus discussion opened. We don't have to have a decision, and consensus is neither majority rules nor a vote. You need to be patient, and allow the process to work. Trying to get around it by declaring the need for a decision will get you nowhere.

You also need to recognize the inclusion of scores and judges have been challenged on the basis of two principles: notability, given they are of questionable significance, and reliability of sources, given they are being added so far after the fact, and we have no way to know if they are accurate. I'll add a third: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Scores might be interesting to some, but more is not necessarily better. The only argument you seem to be able to mount is "more information is better than less information." Why? What does it really tell us, particularly given there's no meaningful discussion of how the scoring is done. If you'd stop being belligerent about the reverts and get busy mounting an argument on which consensus could be reached, we might get somewhere. As for your pro life/choice argument, it's too far from comparable. Drmargi (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You bring up "notability" quite a bit. Let's see what Wikipedia says: "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" - hmm. Nobody's trying to create a new article here. As to the information being "notable" or not, that's a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, some people think it's notable, and others do not. For some,. the secret ingredient is not notable. Craft an argument for that. For some, the cooking style of the competitor is not notable. Craft an argument to defend keeping that information.

You bring up "consensus" quite a bit. Like I said, there will be no consensus here. Your opinion and the opinion of at least three others (maybe four) are mutually exclusive. "Consensus" implies a situation in which compromise is possible. Let me ask you - is there any situation in which you would NOT delete the score list? No? Then there will never be consenus. It appears that to you, "consensus" means "When everyone agrees with me."\

You bring up "verifiability" - the scores are around. They can be verified. As I recall, there are recaps on the gameshownewsnet.com website for some seasons, on TV.com, on other sites as well. The information IS verifiable, and now is being added as new episodes air.

Mount an argument? The only argument you have provided is putting the onus of providing an argument on others. Your only argument against scores has been "I don't think they're notable" - a personal opinion. And Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions. You might want to review What Wikipedia Is Not (and Wikipedia Is Not About Winning while you're at it...)

There are no "rules" here that state at which edit point an article must remain. What we have now is merely a loop, one which it appears will go on forever.

The trouble is by your logic, you got here first, therefore, what you added gets to stay, even if there's no consensus. WP:CONSENSUS says the opposite: You edit, I revert, we discuss, which is precisely what I did. It's consensus, not me, that's put the onus on you. If you'd read the article carefully, you'd know that. From there, every revert on your part is an attempt to get around consensus, and evidence of edit warring. I don't agree that there will be no consensus, just that at present, there is none. That you persist in such an angry approach to your rhetoric rather than problem-solving pretty much guarantees that if we go on as we are, your choice, there won't be because you won't allow there to be. However, if we can work toward some sort of middle ground, we could reach consensus. BTW, I didn't bring up verifiability, I brought in reliability of sources. TV.com has some scores, but is fan submitted, and not a reliable source. The game show news site didn't have any scores that I could find, so if they're reported, they don't stay long. Those are not reliable sources. (And please sign your posts.) Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what the "middle ground" between posting the scores and not posting the scores might look like. And after you're done with that, maybe you can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You're not interested in consensus, you're interested in having your way, with your opinion standing. "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous" - and you know full well there will never a be a unanimity on this since you're in opposition to at least three other editors. You're not going to change your opinion, they're not going to change theirs. Sometimes in life there just isn't consensus - so a second option has to exist. In most cases, that would be majority rule. If every page had to remain in stasis until unanimity were achieved, there would be no progress whatsoever.69.204.227.227 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there is no more to discuss. Those who wish the scores posted have made their case(s), and you have made yours. If there is an "edit war" between you and the other editors, it is just as much your decision to continue it as it is those on the other other side. Just because you feel you are in the right doesn't absolve you of responsibility in that. As they say, it takes (at least) two to tango.69.204.227.227 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll take this as your withdrawal from the discussion and editing the article, since you a choosing to take a fix position rather than work toward consensus, and to be other than civil in your use of sarcasm. I would suggest you register for an account and spend some time working with an experienced editor learning Wikipedia practices and procedures before undertaking any further editing. You might find you'll have a more satisfying experience in the future. Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier for me to assume good faith if Drmargi would suggest what requirements he/she has for achieving consensus and allowing the scores into the article. So far I see "the scores are not notable and I will not allow them into the article"--Paul (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Go read WP:CONSENSUS. It's about agreement. I've raised a series of issues, all WP policy-based, that I believe make the scores both problematic on the face, unverifiable, and indiscriminate information. Thus far, the only responses have been "I want them and oyu don't" type stuff. I've yet to see the IP editor, under either IP or you mount one single, solid argument in support of them more substantive than "I want more information', or to attempt to address the policy arguments I've made. The point of this article is not to jam in every bit of information anyone can gather together, but to report what's WP:NOTABLE to an encyclopedic standard. We don't even have reliable sources for these scores. How do we know their accurate? I sure don't. Moreover, how do you propose to provide a source for each of them, since they're being added long after the fact rather than as the episodes run? But instead of dealing with any of that, you and the two-IP editor make this about winning, hide behind WP:OWN are all about who gets the last word, revert against the procedure for gaining consensus (which is the scores stay out until we reach consensus about their inclusion, since the addition was challenged) and we get nowhere. That this has dragged on to the degree it has is down to the failure of editors wanting the scores in to work toward consensus, period. Drmargi (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi - you haven't left any policy arguments. All of your arguments boil down to personal opinion. Sources have been provided for the information, but you have chosen to dismiss those sources out of personal prejudice that YOU don't find them "verifiable" (as if there are dastrardly people out there who post "fake recaps" of ICA episodes with made-up scores, just to... to what, exactly?) - the information is just as verifiable as the "secret ingredients" column. The simple fact is, having more information, as simple as it may be, IS a valid argument, as long as said information is presented in a concise, readable manner. Which the scores were. I find your accusations of difficulty on the part of the rest of us to be hypocritical, frankly, given your own refusal to work towards consensus, and your insistance that it must be YOUR way until consensus is reached - something you know will never happen, since you hold a mutually exclusive view with the other three/four editors concerned with this. 69.204.227.227 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that the page was first created in November of 2005, nearly a year after the show started. By Drmargi's logic, then, since information was not added after each show, none of the information for the first year's season is verifiable. We don't know, after all, where the page creator got the information from. 69.204.227.227 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're clearly determined to ignore the three policy issues raised in my earlier posts, and win by sheer force of insult and manipulation rather than engage in any good faith discussion, as well as to edit war endlessly, using two IP's. So, fine, let's see you get the scores to rise to an encyclopedic standard. I've tagged each one but the current one as needing a citation to a reliable source verifying its accuracy -- and that doesn't mean TV.com, which is widely considered not to be a reliable source because it is fan-submitted data. Bear in mind, that means an inline reference to a source that can reliably document the accuracy of each score. The current episode doesn't need one because Food Network is still re-running the episode, and its score can be checked that way. Once you've done that, let's see a discussion of the scores that make them clear to the reader who does not watch the show regularly. And you can also get rid of the green background, since that already signifies a draw in the outcomes column. If you're going to do this, do it correctly. Drmargi (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No one's ignoring the three policy issues you bring up. We're simply all saying that your case doesn't have merit. Here, I'll go into more detail:

From Notability:

"Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content."

Well, then. The "notability" issue is now settled. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand. On to the next one...

From Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

"3. Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."

I don't think anyone would suggest that this is a "long and sprawling list" - nor is it, technically, a list, but one part of a list. Explanatory text was added about the scores to the beginning of the article. Tables have been used to enhance the readability. If you've got issue with the color chosen, changing it is no big issue. So, now, moving on to your third issue, verifiabilty...

From Verifiability:

"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

Fine. Since it has been challenged, citations have been added. Perhaps since you're not requiring citations for every other piece of information on the page, since you trust it was added immediately after viewing an episode (untrue, by the way - as was mentioned, the first season wasn't posted until Novermber of '05, and info on Battle of The Masters, which took place in '04, wasn't posted until '06) we can leave the current season as is without muddying it up? Can we trust that scores are being added after airing? Or must we wait until a third party recaps every episode before we post any information about it?

There. There are your three policy arguments addressed.

Chefsuffolk (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You ARE ignoring it by simply sweeping it away as having no merit (and let's be honest, there's no we, just one editor and two IP's who are all the same person.) You've cherry-picked the three cited to find what supports you but by-passed what doesn't. Notability is used to challenge content of articles routinely, which you would know if you were an experienced editor. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided citations for individual battles. The cites you list go to one battle from the season, that's all. Get 'em all in there. Drmargi (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Drmargi, you're ignoring it. Nothing was swept away. Specific reasons were given above to counter your claims. "Notability" - in black-and-white terms - is about the creation of new articles. Just because you may use it inappropriately doesn't make it appropriate.

I posted a link to the first page of each season's recaps on gameshownewsnet. On the side of each page are links to the individual episodes. If you'd like a seperate citation for each one, that can be arranged, but it's only going to serve to muddy up the page with an endless list of citations at the end where they aren't necessary. Your initial point seemed to be to keep the page fairly streamlined, but now you're intentionally forcing other editors to add yet MORE information to it just to make your point. You are, as they say, "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

You accuse of cherry picking, yet you have yet to provide any specific policy that would bar the scores from being posted. You simply throw out pages like WP:Notability, etc, without any discussion as to how they apply.

The fact is, no matter how many citations are provided, no matter how many people point out that your references to Wiki policy don't hold merit, you will always be opposed to the inclusion of scores, and are now merely trying to find ways to make it more difficult for those of us who wish to include them.

Yes, "us" - contrary to your wild conspiracy theories, we are really seperate people. I am not Paul or 69.whatevertheIPwas, nor are they me. Just because we all agree doesn't make it any less so. No one, you might notice, is accusing you of secretly being the same editor as the one person who agreed with you, above.

Since you're so fond of referring to WP pages to support your argument, I'll add a few more you might wish to look at. And yes, the quotes are selected from the greater whole, because I'm not going to re-post the entire pages here:

From Examples of Ownership Behavior:

(Actions)

2 - Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

(Comments On Reverting)

3 - "We don't need this."

5 - "I can't confirm your source."

9 - "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

From Improper Consensus Building:

"One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion."

From Consensus Is Not Unanimity

"Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward."

"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system."

We could play your game - if you're going to continue this, I or Paul or 69.whatever could very well insist that citations be added for Season 1 and Battle of The Masters, since there are no verifiable sources listed for that information and it was all added after the fact. But I'm not going to do any of that, because I'm not petty like that. I trust the information is accurate, because there's no reason not to think that. The idea that someone maliciously made up the results for those seasons is far more ludicrous than the idea that perhaps they had the information from elsewhere. Maybe they even got it from gameshownewsnet. I don't know, but I'm not concerned with its accuracy.

Neither are you, from all I can tell. You're simply using the possibility of inaccuracy as an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Chefsuffolk (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And while we're here, since you're such a stickler for the WPs(that work for you) you might want to refer to The Three Revert Rule, as you've already reverted this page six times in the last 24 hours. Chefsuffolk (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At this juncture, discussion is pointless. You and the two IP's have failed to operate in good faith, the scores aren't cited correctly, and you have no intention of working for consensus. Interestingly enough, had you bothered to do so, the article is pretty much as it would have been had you bothered to try rather than taking this all so personally, and taking a rigid stance. I would, however, suggest you learn proper editing procedure before flinging about accusations or undertaking an editing process like this again. Meanwhile, until you can be bothered to cite each score correctly, rather than forcing readers to hunt for the correct source, I've tagged each section for citation improvement. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If the scores are going to stay, they might as well be complete. Flay vs. Vinczencz will air again on August 19, 9:00 PM ET/PT, therefore, the score will be shown then. As for the other battle, there is no re-run date shown. --DragonofFire (龙火) 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They're not going to stay long if someone doesn't get busy and source them properly, particularly given there's no consensus, just bully tactics that forced them in. Drmargi (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad that Battle Of The Masters and Season 1 will have to go as well, since no one has sourced those properly, and there's no consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.227.227 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have every episode recorded from the start. I'll go through and confirm all the scores.64.252.24.66 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are the air dates ?

In the list of episodes you forgot to include the air dates ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.60.187 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the air dates. The second list of episode numbers are totally useless. It only shows how food network has a habit of airing them our of order from the taping. That whole column could be replaced with original air date details, which is much more relevant and interesting to a viewer. Even the first column of episode numbers are barely worth anything, as it is just a list of numbers. One way is to use the season and the list within that season, while the other way is to use the season and continue the numbered episodes throughout the whole series. 01-01, 01-02, 04-14, 07-53,...... As it stands now, both of the first columns might as well be deleted completely as they add nothing to the page.Tvashtar2919 (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

At least this list has accurate production codes, which is better than 99% of articles can claim. I don't know why the broadcast dates weren't included initially, but the table is already loaded with non-notable information -- see the discussion of the addition of meaningless scores above. Broadcast dates won't tell us anything useful; at least the production codes source and identify the episodes accurately. Drmargi (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those scores are only meaningless to you, my friend. That aside, I agree that original air dates aren't terribly important. Also don't think episode numbers are, but since they're already there, might as well leave them, as they don't hurt the page any.148.4.41.75 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I came here looking for the original air dates. For whatever reason, it appears that Flay v. Bayless was the first aired episode of the first season, but is listed here as Episode 9, per the cited reference. Frankly, what does the production code and episode number tell us anyway? Is it order of production? Final edit? The order the originators had it written down on their dinner napkin? That's not clear.TjoeC (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the production order and the air date have some value. It is a series after all, not a group of completely discrete television shows. To the audience, at least the original audience, each broadcast is in the context of what came before. And the order of airing had some significance to the original producers.... presumably they didn't throw a bunch of episodes into the air and air them in the order they fell.

Okay, I looked up Production code number and that implies the air date is typically the information of main value, and the Production code is often of added value. Sort of the flip side of my argument above. And so I see there is some value, and I think we have a good source. But what I don't want is to waste a bunch of time if there's any MAJOR controversy on this. Can I put in a column with Original air date?TjoeC (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered for a year about the logic behind listing inside-baseball production sequence numbers, without listing first airdates. Note that the wikipedia article on the original Iron Chef Japan show, on which IC America is based, gives first airdates, and those dates are often revealing if a reader wants to know whether one is seeing an early IC Japan show or a late one, as context for such episode features as a chef's personal appearance (Morimoto changes noticeably over the years), or how a chef performs or gets treated. The production numbers can be interesting because they likely indicate order of taping or order in which episodes were initially booked -- but obviously the network's schedulers decide on airdates that differ widely from producers' internal episode ordering, presumably owing to programming considerations such as sweeps periods for highest-draw episodes, etc. Yes, episode numbers within seasons (1, 2, 3, etc.) indicate the order of first airdates, but sometimes successive episode numbers have airdates one week apart, and sometimes a month or more apart. Some seasons segue directly into the next season, and some seaons are separated by time gaps. Listing first airdates eliminates all of that unclarity. I'd argue for adding a first airdate column, unless the poster child for WP:OWN insists we keep discussing it till we all get bored and leave her to do only what she has thought of first. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occasionallyhelping (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the production codes, which are in most TV episode articles, serve as sources in this article. The season # is sufficient; these episodes run and rerun repeatedly -- Food Network ran three last night in a thematic series. Can someone tell me what knowing the actual original broadcast date would actually tell them? Drmargi (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, see my immediately prior comment, to which you are tacitly replying here. But since I'm here, let me add: What does it tell people to have the date of first publication of a book, or the exact release date of a music recording? (For the latter type of information, check *any* wikipedia entry for a modern music recording) -- First airdate for a TV episode tells the same thing, namely, when exactly a cultural object (a TV episode) entered the culture, for its initial intended audience. Preceding unsigned comment added by Occasionallyhelping (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding airdates, though I personally don't find any use for them. I would suggest perhaps replacing the production code number with airdates rather than having both of them, since the rows are getting pretty packed and it could be visually messy to add yet another column. To that end, I'd suggest using the MM/DD/YY format rather than spelling out the months as they do on the List of Iron Chef Episodes page. That said, if someone wants to do the work - go to it. I'll just say to whoever does it, though, get everything worked out beforehand - all the dates, all the code - and do it all in one edit, rather than doing it piecemeal, where we might have half the page one way and half of it another way until whoever's on it gets around to finishing. The only other question is, then, if the episodes should be reordered to broadcast date. If we replace production numbers, obviously that's the right thing to do. If we keep both, I could go either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.227.227 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there may be consensus (although perhaps not unanimity) for adding first airing dates. Speak now or forever hold your piece, since I (or whoever does it) will be quite unhappy if someone up and reverts such a large amount of work.TjoeC (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So after waiting a bit for any further comments, go for it. Sounds like work! -- Source carefully, and check carefully. O:-) My experience is that the standard procedure for doing something this size is to compile and check all your data first, and then when you have open time try to add it in one editing session, or at least in as few sessions as possible, but not widely spaced out in time. Usage note: "forever hold your peace", FWIW. :-) Occasionallyhelping (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My one suggestion would be to replace the "Episode" column (not "Show #") with the air dates, as it's just a numerical list of the order of airings in a season. No reason to have both. Also, sticking with MM/DD/YY format will save on space. 69.204.227.227 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Great points, of course. Also, how many total episodes there are in each season (a point of interest, since it varies so much) could easily be fit in either at the top of each season, or else all together in a short episodes-in-each-season listing near the top or bottom of the article. Occasionallyhelping (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.99.13.128 (talk)

If there is consensus to add air dates, I would second the suggestion to replace the episode number column rather than the show number/episode code. The episode code does add some vital information in that it indicates the order the episodes were filmed, rather than aired, and serves as a source, as Drmargi noted. I believe that some sort of resolution is required since the current listings are inconsistent. All seasons except the first are listed based on the order aired. The first season was originally presented in this order as well, but at some point got reordered based on episode code. Based on this article's archives & my personal notes, the episodes were originally aired 1.) Flay/Bayless, 2.) Batali/Trevino, 3.) Flay/Tsai, 4.) Batali/Laiskonis, 5.) Morimoto/Feenie, 6.) Batali/Armstrong, 7.) Morimoto/Donna, 8.) Batali/Campbell, 9.) Batali/Lo, 10.) Cora/Lee. Either each season should be ordered based on date aired (my preference) or episode code. 24.42.180.150 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Judges

Another editor and I have reverted addition of ICA judges from the episode table. There seems to be a trend lately toward loading up the tables with every bit of minutia related to the battles, rather than using the tables as a concise presentation of the key elements of the battle: IC, challenger, secret ingredient and winner, along with relevant notes. There are two problems with the mass addition of scores, and now judges. The notability issues has been discussed above, and the second is one of reliability of sources for the scores and judges. Someone's come in and put these all in without a single source to support the additions. When the entries for the battles and their outcomes are done, it's immediately after the broadcast, when we know we have reliable information about the battle (and we still have a few errors that way.) But to go back and add literally years worth of judges and scores without sources simply doesn't rise to the standard of reliability. Someone could be pulling it all out of their hats (and I'm not suggesting that was done) and without a source, we'd never know. Drmargi (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding notable judges is useful in my opinion (I know this has been removed). Notable in this case would not really mean they are special, it just implies that this is not a complete list of all judges. It would likely just be the judges who could be verified easily at a later date by someone else through reference; which sort of implies that the more popular folks will tend to be the ones listed. --Kjbrunson (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, another page just for the judges of each episode? Many people would appreciate knowing the food critics, chefs, actors, actresses, etc., that participated on each voting. After all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia recopilating every possible data that can be known. Like, in Battle of the Masters, Puck vs. Morimoto, the actor of the Sopranos that was hated by everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.16.203 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

I'm in the process of removing a serious level of overlinking in the article. Ordinary ingredients should not be linked according to WP:OVERLINKING, and the same culinary style has been linked more than once. Linking of culinary styles is generally inconsistent throughout the article -- perhaps some standard as to how/when to link a style is needed. Drmargi (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Symon vs Fraser (season 8) and original Iron Chef, Battle Peach

Battle Cauliflower tonight with Chef Symon vs Fraser is essentially a duplication of what happened during Battle Peach (episode 629) of Iron Chef (Japan) where the challenger came in alone and due to the teasing of the commentators the Iron Chef decides to dismiss his assistants, it wasn't mentioned on the show (probably Food Network policy / licensing issues) but if a reliable text source can be found just to give it some backing it should definitely be linked to and/or mentioned somewhere. Here's the link to tv.com's info but I'm not sure if that's useable as a source [1]. Cat-five - talk 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, we'd also have to be able to source that it was ICA's intent to replicate what happened on ICJ. The two are similar, but different enough that observation and a description of Battle Peach alone won't pass WP:OR. There have been two other instances where the usual two sous chefs weren't used by a single challenger, once when only one could be spared from the chef's restaurant, and once when a child from Make-A-Wish joined the team. This might have been staged, and might actually have been John Fraser's idea. Drmargi (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Other Editor's Comments

Although I certainly believe that flame wars and name-calling are counter-produtive, it is my belief that removing another editor's comments on an article talk page is almost never appropriate.

The Wikipedia guideline on civility agrees with me:

In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.

A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question), phone number, or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an oversighter should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies whether or not the information is correct, as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. Wikipedia:Outing has full information.

Best regards,--Paul (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnote Numbering

I just noticed the footnotes in the episode summaries almost all link to the note one number less (from note 5 onwards); does anyone know an automated process that could fix this quickly? Hate to have to do it by hand... 173.13.130.235 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes fixed. Did it manually. Chefsuffolk (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Challenger specialty" column

There doesn't appear to be any consistency in this column, and a great deal of it is subjective. There was a time when - after the challenger would choose the Iron Chef, before the secret ingredient was revealed - they'd put the two chef's stats up against each other, and part of that would be the challenger's style. They don't do that consistently anymore - sometimes there's no specialty listed, only alluded to in Alton Brown's intro, if that.

There's also no consistency of language - for one example, why is challenger IA0828H listed as "Contemporary" American vs. IA0821H who is "New" American vs. IA0818H who is "Modern" American? These are all the same.

There are also cases of redundancy ("Seasonal Californian" - when California Cuisine is, by its very nature, seasonal) or IA0702 - "American Organic with Southern Influences" - Southern is American, after all. "Organic / Southern" would suffice. This would one of the many episodes I alluded to above, where no specialty was actually listed on the episode, and was simply made up by whoever posted the info.

Another is IA0704 - in which the specialty is listed here as "'Nose to Tail' Rustic Italian" - really, those are two different things, and we should make use of slashes. Another issue is that with no link or explanation, most people wouldn't know what "nose to tail" meant. "Offal" is a more appropriate and common term. "Rustic Italian / Offal" would be a more concise way of phrasing it.

And finally, at times a lack of specificity - "New/Modern/Contemporary American" is fairly vague, but generally accepted, so we can let those go (though they should all be changed to one consistent name.) On the other hand, things like IA707 - "Sweet/savory" - without any explanantion, what the heck does that mean? Every chef makes sweets and savories on the show. Sam Mason (the chef in question) ran a restaurant at one point that blurred the lines between sweet and savory dishes, sure, but that's not his "specialty" - his style is New American. Another example - IA0811H, "Regional Canadian" - is also rather unspecific. Which region? If it's multi-region, then it's just plain old "Canadian" cuisine. If his style is specific to one area, it should say "Eastern Coastal Canadian" or whatever.

The problem is these were often subjective inserts, as I pointed out they don't always list specialties on the show anymore. I'm fine with posters adding that information which they've inferred, if the specialty isn't actually spelled out on the show - it's fairly obvious when a chef is Italian, French, etc - but there should be some consistency.

Chefsuffolk (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally check those entries to be sure they're consistent with AB's descriptions at the opening of the episode. The problem is one of the chef's own vernacular; they don't have a consistent group of terms they use, but rather, tend to use all manner of descriptions for their food. The "nose-to-tail" rustic Italian is a perfect example: that's how Chris Cosentino describes his food. Adding a slash would change the meaning, and thus be inaccurate. We're dealing with artistic notions of what food is, not a series of checkbox terms, and that means there won't be consistency. I don't really see that it's a problem, particularly as laden with other excessive information as the article is. Drmargi (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears there's some controversy over Chef Mike Lata's specialty and that DRMargi is dead set on having his way again. I'm with 148.whoever in thaqt "Classic" is simply not a style of cuisine or a specialty. Chef used many other words to describe his food but it seems DRMargi insists on having whatever he put in first stay, even though anyone who knows anything about food will tell you that "Classic" is simply not a valid descriptor for a specialty. I suppose this could turn into an edit war like the scores did, but now that two people have weighed in hopefully Margi will see the light and give up this battle for the better of the page. Or if the page MUST reflect on DRMargi's interpretations of the show, perhaps he can rewatch the episode and pick another word of his choice to describe the cuisine besides one like "Classic" that doesn't actually mean anything. Given that ICA no longer uses CS as part of the "tale of the tape" graphic ANYTHING entered into the field is, technically, WP:OR. If DRMargi wants no OR on the page, that column could simply be abandoned. 64.252.148.245 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ so you can avoid personal attacks in the future. We discuss the issue, not the editor.

What is a valid descriptor in an industry where each chef defines his/her own cooking as they see fit? There's no rule book or check list here, just a series of people in a highly individualistic industry describing themselves and their cooking the best way they see fit. Chef Lata clearly identified his cuisine as classic. That's what we've always listed in the infobox. Insulting me here and via edit summary won't further your argument. When this issue arose, I rerecorded the episode and listened to the introduction of the chef, which Alton Brown did, and the chef's own discussion of his cooking, both of which are part of every episode. Lata is quite clear that he considers his cuisine to be classic. Frankly, I find "classic" cooking easily identifiable, and it aligns with what Chef Lata cooks during the battle: traditional American dishes updated for contemporary tastes. On the other hand, he made no mention of seasonal American cooking other than a broad reference to using local ingredients. Arbitrarily labeling his cooking as seasonal American is WP:OR, no way around it, as is your opinion that classic is not a style of cuisine. Had Lata said classic American, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but he didn't and we're left with what he gave us. Moreover, telling me to go back and watch the episode (were it available somewhere) and choose another term because the one Lata uses doesn't suit you is not an option. Drmargi (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"That's what we've always listed in the infobox." - No, that's what you've always listed in the infobox. And like 64.252 said, you're essentially taking the position that because you got there first, what you say goes. I'm with the rest, "Classic" means absolutely nothing. Chef Lata used a lot of words to describe his food, "Classic" was simply one of many, and the one that you personally chose to use, and now refuse to allow any changes to. You say you find "Classic" easily identifiable - but please, do find us a Wikipedia (or any other) article on "Classic Cuisine" so the rest of us can be enlightened as to what, exactly, it is. "Cuisine Classique" is the closest you'll find, and that refers to French cooking, something which I think we can agree Chef Lata doesn't do. Google the phrase and you'll find pages on everything from Italian to Thai.

"Classic" in the context of Cuisine is relative to the next adjective - Classic What? Were you to say "Classic American" that would be acceptable in my book, and you'd get no more argument from my end at least. It wouldn't be the most accurate description, but it would at least have some meaning, if a bit broad. "Classic" by itself has no meaning. None. Nada. Any meaning one may ascribe to it is in their own head. It's a modifier for a modifier.

As to things getting personal, well, if you're going to take every change made to the page as a personal affront, that's on you. Once again it seems to be Dr. Margi vs. The Rest. You do come across like you think you own the page or something, as if any change made to it must be cleared by you. That's WP:Ownership, as I recall, and not looked terribly well on here. This the third or fourth time it's been you vs. a number of other people. It's not personal to point out that a particular editor is acting a particular way that goes against the grain of the other users. It's been one edit war after another, first with the scores, more recently with hyperlinking Chef Forgione's name, and now with this. If you could accept that "consensus does not equal unanimity" (or whatever it was) and be the bigger man and walk away from some of these when clearly more people than you feel strongly a certain way, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But as long as you're going to take every single edit as something personal, well... can't help with that, man. That's in your head. 69.204.227.227 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have a good deal to learn about argumentation without getting personal. I would again refer you to WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Trying to pretend the content of posts above, laden with "you do this" and "you do that" aren't personal is disingenuous at best. The focus of several arguments has not been the issue of how Chef Mike Lata describes his cuisine, but what I may or may not be thinking, or my motives for editing as I do. Had you taken a minute to read WP:EQ, you'd know why that's a problem, but your actions suggest you haven't. You'll continue to have issues with edit wars because you continue to prefer bully-boy tactics to genuine efforts to working toward consensus. I find myself wondering what your real agenda is here, since it's clearly not the betterment of Wikipedia; your edit history speaks volumes, as does the anger with which nearly all your posts are laden.

I'm going to let Classic American stand for now, although it's inaccurate, not because I agree or because it's an acceptable compromise, and certainly not because there's anything remotely like consensus here, but because you will continue to abuse the consensus process in order to grind and grind and grind until you win. Perhaps as you slip into anonymity until the next time you decide to join us, you might consider registering, and take the time to review some basic Wikipedia policies. Drmargi (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the point made above that speciality terminology is simply not systematized in the restaurant field. But I also see more wordy speciality terms being used in that column of the table because of the non-straightforward speciality descriptions contained within some episodes. For example, I notice that someone has edited tonight's speciality column to be five words, whereas one or two words seemed sufficient in that colum during prior seasons. Is tthere a reasonable upper limit on how many words should appear in the challenger speciality column, to avoid verging over into "short essay" category? :-) Occasionallyhelping (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is more a common-sense sort of thing. I'd say less is more as a rule of thumb, but beyond that, we pretty much have to take them as they come. Drmargi (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan

I'm also questioning whether this page belongs in WikiProject Japan. While it is based on a Japanese TV show, it's not, actually, a Japanese TV Show. You might as well include Star Wars in WP:J since it's based on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. Chefsuffolk (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Seem a bit tangential, at best. What's the Process, just delete the template??TjoeC (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

DoneTjoeC (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Posting results prior to airing

I'm kind of wondering how user 68.185.171.167 knew and posted the winner column result at 11 minutes into the east coast premiere of tonight's episode. The winner is announced at 59 after the hour. Occasionallyhelping (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Youngest challenger

I've just reverted an edit by an anon IP removing the note that Emma Hearst was the youngest challenger ever, which is a shame, because I agree that it's incorrect. At least one of the three culinary students who battled Michael Symon was younger; the IP has identified Katelyn Remick. The problem is one of semantics (possibly) and sourcing (definitely). The show identified Hearst as the youngest, but was it chef or challenger? I heard challenger and added the note accordingly, but would appreciate someone checking me on it. If it's chef, I can see the distinction: Katelyn Remick was not a qualified chef when she competed. If they said challenger, the change can't be made until we have a reliable source providing Remick's age. Either way, the note should stand as it until a bit of checking can be done. Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Edited to withdraw text; Remick was not a challenger, nor a chef. She headed a team of three invited to battle Symon as part of a special battle promoting a Food Network scholarship at their culinary school. Drmargi (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, it was incorrect and never should have been put on the page in the first place, regardless what the FN website says or Alton Brown said during the show - incorrect is incorrect, and we're not in the business of posting incorrect information. It creates a bit of a problem, because you're insiting a source be added to a deletion - and one can't put a "Ref" tag on negative space. However, by adding the info to Season 7 - just to satisfy you, DrMargi - the source has been added.148.4.41.38 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of satisfying me; it's what WP:RS demands. Now we have an issue of contradictory sources, and a determination must be made which is more reliable: the source itself or an old newspaper article. Moreover, once I added a source to Hearst's note, it should not have been removed. Please take the time to review all of WP:RS so you're informed as to how this is done. Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And obviously, since their information has been shown to be incorrect, they were not, in fact, a reliable source. Please take the time to review the meanings of "true" and "false" before posting information that you admit is incorrect. You're fighting surprisingly hard to include a known falsehood on the page. 148.4.41.38 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Go read WP:RS, then come back and talk. There's more than just hard numbers at issue here. Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. And your source still wasn't reliable. Maybe you should read it. And yes, at issue are the "hard numbers" - one piece of information is right, one is wrong. There is no debating that. Either Chef Hearst was the youngest challenger, or Chef Remick was the youngest challenger. They are mutually exclusive. There is no justification for putting information that you know to be false on a page, and stating it as fact. 148.4.41.38 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Your argument hangs on Remick being a challenger. But the argument can be made, and clearly the show's network has done so, that she was not. That battle was about three culinary students v. Symon and two interns. She wasn't a challenger in the conventional sense, but rather one of a team brought into advertise the culinary schools with which Food Network is affiliated. You're also hanging your argument on what you see as true. Had you read WP:RS carefully, you'd see the criterion is what is verifiable. FN has verified that Hearst is the youngest challenger, whereas the Arizona newspaper simply verified Remick's age. Why then Remick arguable not the youngest? She was the head of a team of three, not a challenger. She was in a special battle, not a conventional one. Maybe both. There is a compromise, however, that recognizes each appropriately. Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly" - ? Where? I don't see anything on the FN website stating that Remick et al weren't challengers - you're simply inferring that, and inferring is your opinion. Just as you've tried to parse it all to redefine "chef" you're also trying to redefine "challenger" because you can't wrap your head around the idea that - oh my god! - the FN website might have made a mistake, which they obviously did. They're not infallible, they're not The Pope. 148.4.41.38 (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No more so that you're interpreting what a challenger is; less in fact. Katlyn Remick didn't challenge Michael Symon; a team of three culinary students from a specific school with which Food Network has a relationship were invited to take on an Iron Chef as part of a special battle designed to both advertise the school and Food Network's scholarship program. Remick was the team leader, not a challenger, nor was she the youngest member of the team. On the other hand, there is an established definition of chef, and she does not meet that definition as of her appearance; she was a culinary student, and a culinary student is not, by definition, a chef. You might want to peruse the article on what a chef is herein, and see in what ways Remick and here colleagues are not chefs.

From Food Network: The Chairman has an unprecedented battle up his sleeve. He has invited [emphasis added] 3 culinary students [emphasis added] from The International Culinary Schools at The Art Institutes. To battle them, the Chairman has chosen Iron Chef Symon, accompanied by two young proteges of his. In this incredible battle of will and culinary wit, tune in to see whose cuisine reigns supreme! Ergo: no challenger, no chef, no youngest.

You have another problem. Your source does not verify Remick as the youngest anything (challenger, team leader, team member, whatever) on ICA, so you have a verifiability issue, per WP:VERIFY. Drmargi (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Drmargi's trying to own the page once again. Quelle Surprise. Though I do side with you on the Québécois flag issue, FWIW.

Okay, first, to both of you: the whole "Chef" thing is irrelevant. Nowhere on the website is the word "Chef" used re: the youngest anything. Debating the meaning of it doesn't matter a lick. The only thing said on the FN website is "challenger" so let's stick to that. Although, for the record, from a chef, Katelyn Remick is/was a chef. Of course a culinary student can be a chef. That's nonsense to say otherwise. It is not a title bestowed with a degree, like "doctor" or something.

But, as I said, that's irrelevant, so back to the real issue: what is, then, a challenger? It has multiple definitions: one is someone who issues a challenge. In that case, perhaps only Hearst is a challenger, since she is the only one who called out a specific Iron Chef. However, there is another common definition: a challenger can also mean anyone who competes against a title holder. This appears to be the correct meaning in this context. Why? Because in innumerable episodes, the competitors did NOT choose the Iron Chef, but instead the Chairman did his "each battle has a unique flavor all its own" speech and selects the Iron Chef himself. Yet all of those chefs are, undoubtedly, challengers. If they are to be considered challengers, so, by the same logic, is Chef Remick.

The fact that Remick and her team were invited by the Food Network to compete is also irrelevnt, as is to misunderstand how the show works. Let's be clear: all chefs who compete on the show are invited to by the Food Network. There is no process by which one applies or auditions for the show. The Food Network comes to you, you accept or decline. Every chef is "invited to battle" and many are for special episodes to promote other FN products or events, be it a culinary school scholarship or a show on the Cooking Channel or some charity that a chef is busking for. Doesn't mean that the particpants aren't challengers simply because there's an ulterior motive to the casting decisions.

The sticking point seems to be perhaps that the specific word "challenger" is not used on the FN website page for the Season 7 battle in question. But do a little research and you'll see that's again neither here nor there. Just as each battle has a unique flavor all its own, each blurb uses different language so as not be monotonous. Over half the episodes in any given season will not use the word "challenge" in their description. This current season alone, neither Hughes, Schneider, Cantrel, nor Solomonov's episodes use that specific word. Are none of them challengers? Of course they are, it's silly to say otherwise. Simply because the FN copy writers used "take on" or "battle" (the same word used for the Season 7 episode, incidentally) instead doesn't mean they're not challengers. Because they didn't use the word "battle" for Chef Hearst, does that mean she didn't actually battle? Hogwash!

The FN website is simply wrong. Mistakes happen. No big deal. Hopefully, to respect Chef Remick, it will be fixed, though I don't know that there's anyone lobbying FN to do so. Maybe if Chef Remick notices and writes them. In the meantime, "verifiability" has nothing to do with anything, since we obviously can't verify that Chef Hearst was the youngest challenger to everyone's liking.

In the meantime, I see no reason to put such wrong information into the page. Obviously, there's controversy as to it's correctness. At one time, Drmargi believed it to be incorrect but has now talked himself into the opposite, somehow. I vote remove the information about both chefs since it's not like it NEEDS to be here or anything. The page is, technically, a list, and any of the factoid / notes added outside the main information are purely extraneous "fun facts" and irrelevant to the whole, so it's no big loss to just drop it. I'm also fine with the compromise that briefly appeared, where the note was re-written to reflect that according to the FN website Hearst was the youngest, however there was evidence to suggest otherwise. Chefsuffolk (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The language used on FN, the network producing the show, is reliable. The rest is POV, does not support your contention, unsourced and/or trying to parse what's not there. Remick was not a challenger but an invitee, therefore she cannot be the youngest challenger in Kitchen Stadium. The rest adds additional weight, but that's the bottom line.

You know, if you want to use sockpuppets again to try to create the illusion of consensus, as you have done previously, using three IPs on Long Island (phone provider, cable provider and college) then registering under a username that includes name of the county where Long Island is located probably isn't the smartest way to do it. Drmargi (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not reliable if it's not right. You think they're reliable. That's your POV. Others feel differently.

Once before, when we were debating the scores, you accused a half-dozen people of all being the same. This is a regular trope from you. You have a hard time accepting that one person disagrees with you, let alone more than one, so they must all be the same person. That's just silly.

FWIW, I am, in fact, originally from Suffolk County.... Virginia. Few miles from the Carolina border and walking distance to Great Dismal Swamp. I don't assume you're a Doctor simply because your pseudonym begins with "Dr". I do currently live and work in Manhattan, which is actually pretty far from Suffolk, Long Island. I went out there once to do some fishing, took nearly three hours. Just because they look close on the map, don't let it fool you. I've looked at the two other IPs that have reverted your change as well, because you brought it up, and while we're all in NY State, they're not really near each other. The one starting with 79 is in NYC, and Mr/Ms 148 is in Greenvale, which is in Nassau County, a good hour away. Also, do note that Long Island is not located in Suffolk County. Suffolk County is located in Long Island.

I don't know much about IPs and such, I admit, just what I could google. But I do know about conspiracy-theory-prone people. Chefsuffolk (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I know arguing is fun, and reading arguing can be fun, too :-) --but maybe we could make some additional progress by having someone contact FN itself for comment. I am sure they would like to get it right. Or then again, maybe not :-) [User:Occasionallyhelping|Occasionallyhelping]] (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments from FN won't meet the standard of reliability because they aren't readily accessible. Besides, they have commented on the Food Network website. All the denials and contortions in the world attempting to paint FN as wrong won't change that. It's not up to us to determine the truth of a source, which is WP:POV. The standard isn't truth, it's verifiability, and we can verify two things: 1. That Katelyn Remick and her fellow culinary students were invited to compete against Symon, and that Remick was not the youngest of the three; and 2. that FN has verified that Emma Hearst is the youngest challenger to compete in Kitchen Stadium. And that, my friends, is an end to it per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Drmargi (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When I logged out a little while ago, I noticed that I had a new message sent to User talk:74.108.11.202, claiming that that IP is a sockpuppet of Chefsuffolk. But 74.108.11.202 is actually me, occasionallyhelping, which is why I got notified.

Since this is not paid work or professional publication, I simply do not always see the point in bothering to log in to edit. I can't put this sort of self-publication or volunteer work on a real resume, and I just do it now and then when it strikes me to add something (hence the handle). I also work from various computers; my entire employment is online. So I am sure I have edited from many IPs over time. And? -- I bet most WP editors of any volume have edited from multiple IPs.

Drmargi is not an unintelligent person, but she constantly insists on having her precise way, and when she encounters any dissent she says everyone who has ever done anything she doesn't like is a sockpuppet of one person. My concise comment: WP:OWN, WP:DUCK

By the way, I wrote both the original Hearst-youngest footnote that drmargi keeps putting back up now, and also the FN-got-it-wrong-about-Hearst footnote that she keeps deleting. I'm kind of enjoying the pingpong being so fiercely played with my little notes. :-) I'm happy for it to be either way. BUT in the hierarchy of actual real-research values (I edit academic publications), getting it right always trumps such lower-ranking research values as where information is gotten from and accurately credited to. What WP article is that, WP:GETITRIGHT? :-) Occasionallyhelping (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You nailed it, Occasionallyhelping, both with regard to the topic of youngest challenger and with dmargi. The facts clearly support the claim that the Food Network got it wrong that Hearst was the youngest challenger. --Crunch (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, the age of Hearst is not even important information. It's trivial. Perhaps if she had won the battle it would be notable that she was the youngest winner on ICA, but she didn't. --Crunch (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a rather lot of irrelevant information on the page. Do we need to know who the first female chef to lose to an Iron Chef was? Or who the first female Canadian chef to compete was? If we're to break down tidbits that finely, might as well point out who the first male Senegalese chef was, or who the first chef over 6'2" was. 69.204.227.194 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Who is Crunch that Drmargi doesn't immediately revert his/her edits and argue the point until doomsday? Must have some kind of mad power / respect in WikiWorld... 148.4.41.38 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast! She just undid Crunch's changes, after waiting a week, presumably on the assumption that he is not page-obsessed and no longer looking. If you click on Crunch's talk page and contribs, he is someone authorized by wikipedia to intervene in certain kinds of editing issues. Drmargi just waited for when she hoped he wasn't paying attention any more, and reverted everything he did back to where she wanted it to be before overseers got involved. Big news, right? She also posted this on Crunch's talk page months ago:

[start of quoted material]

Accusations of bullying and bad faith

I would encourage you to be more careful about making accusations of bad faith, and to seriously look to yourself before you accuse anyone of being a bully. I've noticed quite a "my way or the highway" approach to edits on your part. Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[end of quoted material]

Um, is wikipedia a place for dispassionate research and editing, or a place for drama queens and wannabe dictators to vent their personality issues? Inquiring minds want to know...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.134.10 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Drmargi just posted on the talk page of the admin Dreadstar, who blocked chefsuffolk after she lied to Dreadstar when she claimed that chefsuffolk was sockpuppeting here, from an ISP that is actually mine (as I discssued a week ago, above). My reply follows her post:

Iron Chef America, Redux

Hey, there! I know you're in the middle of a situation, but the talk page of Iron Chef America is getting a bit out of hand again. The IP hopper that is a presumptive sock of Chefsuffolk is back with a new IP, stirring up trouble. I've been tagging the suspected IP socks, but it's not having any effect. I'm not sure what my next move it, but the sockmaster and his socks are pretty determined to be as disruptive as it takes to achieve whatever his/her aim is. At one point, the sockmaster and another user were (seemingly) attempting to goad me based on some of what was written, so I laid low for a while, but this appears to be all about a grudge, not what's best for the article. Sockmaster also appears not to understand what reviewer rights give an editor, and seems to think one of the involved editor has the right to be the final arbitor of what is/isn't acceptable in an article. Oye!

If you have a minute, would you take a look, and maybe we could chat about the next step? Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To inject a little fact here, rather than just nasty attitude and false assertion... Drmargi has now reverted the article to what she wanted back in the first place, after it had been edited in **various** ways by multiple different **registered** users, most recently Crunch, not Chefsuffolk. In MargiWorld, "out of hand" means "people just aren't accepting my one preferred edit as final and irrevocable." I.e., classic WP:OWN.

Unless Dreadstar believes that he couldn't possibly end up with problems over indefinitely blocking poor old chefsuffolk for sockpupetting when he isn't, or taking other administrative actions based on false information that Drmargi frequently employs to get her way on EVERYTHING (not just this one weensy edit war -- check her entire contribs list), he better be careful about taking Drmargi's assertions at face value, without solid evidence. Oy! -- And that's "arbiter" by the way. Sheesh. If you're going to be so bossy all the time, at least get the basic basics right. 75.198.134.10 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check chefsuffolk's talk page (click on "talk" right after his name, higher up in this section), he was put on indefinite block by Dreadstar over a week ago, and he can't get that lie-based status fixed because apparently he's first required to admit that he will stop doing what he didn't do in the first place (sc. sockpuppet), and also manifest sufficient understanding of his sins. Creepy! Occasionallyhelping (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I also left a note on chefsuffolk's talk page, which I finally got curious about as a result of the strange happenings here in the "List of ICA Episodes" article and its talk page. He hasn't been making much headway over there with his fond belief that the truth is a defense against false assertions:

I'm leaving a note here for poor chefsuffolk, since he appears either insufficiently familiar with how to research the goings-on here, or uninclined to do so.

I'm user occasionallyhelping, and maybe ten days or so ago when I posted on List of Iron Chef America Episodes while not logged in, drmargi flagged that IP on "suspicion" of being a sockpuppet of you. Of course, I'm not, but apparently she has had good results getting people to do her bidding by using that sockpuppet claim any time she doesn't get agreed with by a cross-section of contributors on a page she is obsessed with (which happens a fair amount -- check her contribs log).

Telling a bureacrat, even a volunteer one, that something isn't true does not impress them one whit -- even if it actually *isn't* true. The fact about bureacracies is that its functionaries seek to protect themselves and (as part of that process) their organization. The exercise of unchecked power is also gratifying to many who seek positions of control in a bureaucracy. Truth simply isn't the issue. Status, power, and prerogatives are -- perhaps even more nakedly so when (as here) no monetary compensation is involved.

Facts **with evidence** are the only things that have a shot (but no guarantee). So check the User talk:74.108.11.202 page, and also the bottom of the Talk page for the List of Iron Chef America page where Drmargi started editwarring with you; I included my input there, over a week ago now. If Drmargi got a block put on you by calling my IP a sockpuppet of you, and no one cares that it was simply a self-serving lie similar to many others she appears by activity pattern to have engaged in, then that tells all of us plenty about wikipedia down in the trenches. Perhaps it's highminded in theory, but in practice perhaps it's as creepy as the old usenet forums that were dominated and ruined by the bossiest members of groups, back in the 80s and 90s. That would be useful information to find out. So it's a win-win if you give evidence. Either you get satisfaction and fair treatment, or you realize it's a clique of nasty people, and you can go ahead and let it go, and tell people that.

O, and by the way, a couple of days after Drmargi got Dreadstar to block you, she got him a barnstar award. See what I mean about cliques, and people taking care of themselves and each other within an organization? Organizations are more like organisms that protect themselves at the expense of anyone else. Check people's user talk pages, and you'll see how things work in reality.Occasionallyhelping (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Occasionallyhelping (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Occasionallyhelping, in general I side with you. I certainly don't side with Drmagi and her continual scrambling around Wikipedia reverting everything in sight and people of sock-puppetry. HOWEVER, it is very difficult to work with you here when you refuse to sign in and consistently use your username. I'm not accusing you of nefarious deeds. I just want to know that I'm dealing with the same person every time or different people. Are you 148.4.41.38 or 69.204.227.194 or 75.198.134.10 ? Nobody here makes their living on Wikipedia and we all manage to log in. There is also a checkbox to keep you logged in for 30 days at a time. --Crunch (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi :-) -- Occasionallyhelping here. Your post gets at the exact point I made last night. Wording such as "work with you" indicates that the priority dynamic among heavy editors ( = people with tens of thousands of lifetime edits in five or more years of intensive editing) is to focus on interpersonal relationships -- i.e., who do I work with? what status do I have, and what informal rights does that give me? what can I get other heavy users to agree to, and how can I ally with them to get my way? how can doing anything that somehow connects to anyone else on the site help or hurt me, based on that other person's perceived status? etc. That calculating relational focus, which as an occasional contributor I've only noticed in recent months, is clear from any sample reading of article talk pages, user talk pages, and other discussion areas underlying the actual articles. Since people only have a finite amount of time and energy available for wikipedia editing, greater prioritization of intra-organizational relationships decreases the focus on factual accuracy.

I've used wikipedia since around 2003, despite the reality that one has to be very careful owing to the amateur and often non-expert status of the editing, and the fact that people in my field (academia, academic editing) disparage wikipedia, and constantly warn students off using it. I've found it to be ok only for things I know very little about, as a quick step-up into some kind of knowledge base -- which then has to be followed up by looking into vetted publications, if more solid and detailed information is needed. But it's very useful as exactly what it says it is: wiki (quick) initial information, of some sort.

Because all edits are temporary owing to the infinite opportunities for subsequent revisions, exactly who makes an edit is simply not important to whether content is solid or not, or whether it should be changed later or not. In fact, leaving that interpersonal material out of the equation keeps the focus where it belongs: on accuracy of content. *******The whole problem of page ownership and bickering comes about precisely because of people who bring personal status and relationships into the editing equation here, at the expense of a content focus.

Yes, I am here stating the exact opposite perspective from that which underlies both of the following two perspectives: 1. "This is *my* page, because I have put a lot of work into it, and I will keep changing anything on it that I don't prefer forever, till everyone who disagrees gets bored or gives up, because I have stamina" (WP:OWN), and also 2. "I need to know who I am working with here as much as possible, because my network of intra-site relationships, and my resultant status and situation on the site, are crucial to me, given all that I have already invested here of my time and energy" (this is how bureaucrats operate in any organization, unless someone higher up makes clear that it is not acceptable to the optimal functioning of the organization; it's also how aggressive usenet alliances used to operate back in the day, which is the closest interwebby analogy to what I am concerned about here on wikipedia).

Here's what it says if anyone goes to edit without bothering to log in: "You are not currently logged in. If you save any edits, your IP address will be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page." There's nothing in those sentences that states an account is required to edit, let alone that logging in always to that account is required or even suggested, in order to edit. There's also nothing there that says to me there is any particular advantage to me in logging in, so for many years (2003-10) it seemed to me that even bothering to create an account was an unnecessary extra expenditure of time. I broke down and created an actual account in the spring of 2010, but at this point I can't for the life of me recall what I could have been thinking at that time. :-)

I understand that wikipedia is privately owned. I also know that the original and still professed ideal is for the focus to be on content, not on the personal careers of heavy editors (see WP:OWN, etc. etc.). But in reality, as organizations mature those who are most heavily involved in them will tend to get extremely invested and want things always to be their way, or to their benefit. That's really the opposite of the open-contributiopn "web 2.0" model that wikipedia began with back in the early days of web 2.0. Perhaps this evolution toward the opposite "insider-controlled" focus is an historical and organizational inevitability. HOWEVER, it also means that people who occasionally help will tend to find fairly soon that they are being exposed to, and wasting much time on, pointless drama and maneuvering by heavy-editing insiders. I wonder how wikipedia will do in the future with a few thousand unpaid heavy editors, some of whom are at each others' throats a good deal, with fewer and fewer occasional volunteers?

I work online from multiple computers, and all but one of them (the old desktop) uses wifi with dynamic IP assignment that I have zero control over, and zero interest in. Let's see what the bot says my IP is when I add my four tildes. :-) Ah, ok, I save-previewed, and this is obviously the IP for the desktop. I even kind of recognize it. W00t! 74.108.11.202 (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're making things WAY too complicated. By "work with you," I just meant "communicate with you" and know that I'm communicating with the same person every time. It gets confusing. I'm not accusing you of anything but I have limited time to spend on Wikipedia and I don't have time to wonder if 74.108.11.202 and Occassionallyhelping are the same person so I know whether I should be carrying on from a past conversation or starting a new one. That's all. --Crunch (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that Drmargi has friends in high places. This "Dreadstar" whoever he or she is (hey, maybe it's a sockpuppet for Margi?) appears willing to do whatever is requested by Margi. As long as that's the case, there's almost no point in bothering trying to be helpful here. Might as well rename the page "Drmargi's List Of Iron Chef America Espisodes" because that's what it is and forever shall be. Maybe people need to start officially registering complaints/reports about Drmargi's violations - the almost ludicrous number of breaches of 3RR, the constant ownership behavior, etc. Not just on this page, but if you look at his talk you'll see it's on many others - some Gordon Ramsey show, a Dr Who page where he's been warring over something as simple as using the term "Series" vs "Season" - etc, etc, etc. Maybe another editor will actually look into it and start posting warnings on Drmargi's page. Ha! Probably just wishful thinking. As to who I am, I'm just my IP and that's it. 148.4.41.38 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Air Date + Links to (And Creation of) Pages for Individual Seasons

I do not need to explain the obvious necessity of adding dates to this page... We also need a page for EACH SEASON (which is entirely consistent with pretty much every single other Wikipedia TV show page series). This is a bare minimum. Unlike fiction shows, with a plot, there is no need for individual pages for EPISODES (which is commonplace, and pretty much any/every show with viewers> 1 million has this format). It just seems so strange... this page has so much more detailed information than what is necessary, like the challenger specialty? come on... it took way more research and time for the author to look that up than it did to look up the original air date. It is so surprising and counter intuitive. not to mention the fact that people have been rattling for the Air dates for quite a while (on the talk page here).68.6.76.31 (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Garces' perfect score

I just reverted an edit to the note that Jose Garces received a perfect score in his latest battle against Chef Casella. A review of the scores indicates it is the first perfect score, and I have no memory of another one, but Alton Brown noted at the end of the episode that it was only the second one in Iron Chef America history. Chef Batali received 80 points from four judges in Battle Mango, but a perfect score would have been 90 points, including 10 for the drinks made by the mixologist who competed with him. It's possible Brown's functionaries reviewed the previous scores, missed the additional ten points in that battle, and made the assumption on that basis. We don't know. Equally problematic is the source of the scores listed here, many of which come from a minor website and were added long after the fact. They're of questionable accuracy, to be sure. That leaves us with a dilemma as to whether Garces was the first, or second, to receive a perfect score. Until such time as we can sort it out, it's probably safer to simply note the perfect score, which is what matters, and hold off on noting whether it was for the first or the second time such a score was earned until such time as we have a reliable source to verify that particular detail. Drmargi (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Score Averages

Considering the conversations in this discussion, I'm not sure if this would be received well, so I leave it up to someone to yea or nay it. I have input and calculated the average scores of all the Iron Chefs and accumulated challengers. With the small amount of battles that have had a total possible score of above 60 points, I calculated the winning percentage and applied that to a 60 point score, so that the relative average wouldn't be affected by a score of above 60 points. I think this would be a small (not cluttered) and simple addition to the winning tables of the Iron Chefs, as a certain kind of quality can be ascertained through winning percentages and number, but an average score lends itself to the quality of the battle as well, win or lose. As of September 17th, the averages, based only on ICA episodes (including Battle of the Masters), are as follows:

• Morimoto: 50.8
• Flay: 48.8
• Batali: 50.5
• Cora: 48.7
• Symon: 51.1
• Garces: 51
• Forgione: 50
• All Challengers: 46.6

--Waliy sherpa (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the scores are already averages of either 9 or 12 data points across three or four judges and, mathematically, you can't average averages. Consequently, without the original individual scores by judge there's no way to get an accurate average score, so the figures you have are both orginal research and inaccurate. And then you have to consider regression to the mean and how it affects the new versus more experienced ICs' average, which the typical reader wouldn't know how to factor in when interpreting the scores. Worse, there is so much variability among judges, not to mention extreme bias on some judges' part (one very regular judge does Bobby Flay's PR for example), so as to render whatever average you have almost meaningless. Sorry to burst your bubble, and with recognition of the work you put in, but as interesting as this sounds, the table can't go into the article. Drmargi (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Scores are not "already averages" but totals of the judges' awarded points. That's why on episodes with four judges the scores are higher. You're making it sound more complicated than it is. You don't need the original individual scores to calculate it at all. The rest of that stuff about regression to the mean and whatnot is nonsense. But all that aside, I don't see any reason to post averages on the page - the main issues being the occasional four-judge battle throwing things. Yes, you could multiply the scores by .75 to get a general idea of what the score might have been, but that's a "might have" and doesn't really play.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if I was going crazy or not, since I've always known the scores to be direct sums, not averages. A lot of slick demagogy here, but little in the way of understanding. Speaking of, I totally understand why the averages weren't necessary. Just a project that I had to do that I thought might of been interesting. Thanks for the talking points though! --Waliy sherpa (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Final Score: Season 9 Episode 17

the listed score was 51:44 for the Iron Chef. However, if you add up the scores that they list for each subcategory, the number for the iron chef is incorrect. It does not matter, because either way the score is higher and the Iron Chef wins. I think it is relevant because other scores may have been misreported in the past (if it happened by episode 160, chances are it may have happened before). I do not think there were mistakes about who won, but the scores are relevant to show HOW MUCH they won by (indicating how much better their effort was compared with the other contestant in that particular episode). For relevance: Taste 23:21 Originality: 13:10 Originality 15:13. that adds up to 48:44. My source is Food Network HD broadcast by Cox Communications. I am sitting here in my living room with it paused at the scene that shows the scores. If I could I would upload a screen shot to prove it here, but you can easily find this episode streamed (legitimately) from at least one or two sources to prove it to yourself.68.6.76.31 (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

23 + 13 + 15 = 51. Also, I think you meant S9E18, but that's moot since your math was wrong, anyway. 148.4.41.45 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sous Chef Note

Season 6, episode 4 (IA0605), Tre Wilcox from Top Chef seasons 3 and 8 is the sous chef to the Rathbun brothers. Similar notes exist for other episodes' sous chefs (season 7 episode 10, for example), however Tre worked in Kent Rathbun's kitchen at Abacus at the time, so I'm unsure how notable it is. Also, I'm using a tablet at the moment and trying to edit articles on my tablet is infuriatingly difficult, especially when editing notes instead of text. If this is considered notable and someone wants to add it... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.176.33 (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason they aren't representing their country of birth ,Wikipedia:FLAGBIO and also WP:UNDUE Gnevin (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The show specifically identifies country of birth, and nationality as a culinary influence. Moreover, at times, they do informally represent their country of birth, which is not the only criterion for including the flag in such instances. The flags provide specific information highlighted in the show, and not available otherwise. They clearly fall within the exceptions allowed under the policy. --Drmargi (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Which exception? Gnevin (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "exception" that Dr. Margi is talking about is the policy "Don't emphasize nationality without good reason". I can see the argument that, as an American show that specifically goes out of its way to tell us if a competitor is French or Austrian or whatnot that the information might be relevant. I agree with you that the Weight in question is Undue. Especially for the Candians, etc, who have a very similiar culinary heritage. Morimoto doesn't compete for Japan on ICA, but he wears the Japanese flag on his coat. It's a complicated issue, but I see more harm than good in using the flags. Achowat (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's it exactly, Achowat. I apologize for the slow reply, but I wanted to go back and reread the policy, and got sidetracked. The policy is clear about the inappropriate use of flags for decorative purposes and the use of flags to duplicate information already available in text form, which is commonly done (see most TV articles, which include tables full of international broadcasters that are identified in text and by flags) as well as the emphasis of nationality without good reason. This application of the flags falls outside that type of application, as well as WP:UNDUE, as it provides information not otherwise available which is relevant to the competition itself, as national cuisines strongly influence many of these chefs. This isn't labeling of nationality for its own sake, but nationality as a factor influencing the competition. WP:FLAGBIO is trickier, I agree, but as I previously noted, we're not emphasizing nationality for its own sake, but rather identifying nationality as an element of professional identity, just as we do the chefs' culinary style. Use of the flag is simply the most parsimonious way to do so, and is the good reason the policy speaks to.

No matter how carefully crafted a policy is, there will be exceptions; this is one. Note, too, that use of the flags is narrowly constrained. At least two of these chefs are naturalized Canadian citizens, and probably a fair few are naturalized American citizens, a second (or alternative) placement of the flags that isn't made -- the point is to stress birthplace as culinary influence, not where the chef now plies his/her trade. In one case, we even attempted to use a provincial flag for one Canadian chef born in and heavily influenced by his province's cuisine according to the show, but that proved to be too problematic for casual Canadian readers who interpreted the use politically. The point is that we provide information to the reader of the article that the show stresses: that country of birth for these chefs influences their cuisine, and is a factor in the competition. On balance, the informational value of the flags in this instance far outweighs any policy-related constraints on their use. --Drmargi (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While the flags maybe used to illustrate their influences, there is no indication to the user this is the case and they unlikely to guess. If it's there influences surely it should be in the speciality column and everyone would have a flag? Once again this comes down to MOSICON in a nut shell you say they add information what information do they add that the words mere pixels away don't?

Ps Rob Feenie has a canadian flag but French-Asian influences ? I'm confused Gnevin (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Which comes to a fringe benefit of MOSFLAG. We don't have to differentiate between a Quebecer and a Canadien because we use neither flag. I don't buy the "culinary influence" line. That would suggest we'd use an Italian flag for Masahiko Kobe, which is absurd. I say we default to birthplace unless the show itself mentions something else. Achowat (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking about the overall body of challenger chefs where influences are concerned. No doubt there are some exceptions. (I believe Feenie talked about being influenced by the diversity in his birthplace as an influence in his pre-battle interview, if I'm remembering correctly.) We always default to birthplace, as identified on the show, or it just gets too messy, thus the one attempt to use the provincial flag. Again, the flags add information specifically cited by the show. This is not casual use of the flags. --Drmargi (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FLAGBIO: Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality Gnevin (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Addressed above. Moreover, these are policies, not rigid rules. WP:IGNORE. (Out of curiosity, I note you are Irish. Have you ever seen the show?) --Drmargi (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we keep chopping and changing the meaning of these flags. One minute its nationality which flagbio doesn't include , next its influence also not covered by flagbio (but probably covered by WP:OR) but now we are saying place of birth which is explicitly disallowed by flagbio. I don't see how ignoring flagbio in this improves the project (and yes we have TV in Ireland) Gnevin (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and have made clear how the flags provide key information that relates directly to the individual battles. Moreover, my question was perfectly cordial; there's no need for such a sarcastic, belittling response that puts words in my mouth. --Drmargi (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being grumpy to answer the question we get it on the Food network UK, from across the water Gnevin (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, given the confusion that arises from editors about flag each flag means, it seems clear that readers (who we don't ask to familiarize themselves with the MOS) would be even more confused. It seems to me that the best solution is no flag at all. Most competitors have articles where questions of nationality and personal history are answered. (and everyone calm down; there was a misunderstanding about the tone of a question about the availability of ICA in Ireland, no need to get heated) Achowat (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree about the flags Gnevin (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, but I don't care to be patronized when I've asked a perfectly innocent, and reasonable, question; I can't be expected to know if the show is shown in Ireland or not, and a response based in a cheap stereotype about Americans was completely out of line. Returning to the issue at hand: you're making an assumption about confusion by readers not in evidence. In fact, there's been little discussion or debate over the flags because they are clear to readers; moreover, if memory serves, this is th first time their use has been questioned. Wikipedia has the flag icon templates for a reason, and I have yet to see a good reason to remove them, just a lot of hiding behind over-literal application of policy. The culinary industry is an international one, as emphasized by the show, and removal of the flags in order to serve over-rigid application of a policy (not a rule), particularly in the face of WP:IGNORE will materially harm the article and the project. --Drmargi (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"IAR" isn't about doing whatever you want just for the sake of doing it; IAR is about when a policy or procedure prevents you from making the encyclopedia better. I don't see how the reader is served by being shown a distracting flag is of real benefit. We already list the culinary expertise of the chef in question, and I disagree that Iron Chef is designed to be an "international exhibition". It doesn't particularly matter if Rob Feenie was born in Vancouver or Vancouver or even Vancouver; he's not competing "on behalf" of Canada or Canadians or anything. All Rob Feenie does is paint the chef from "Franco-American chef" to Johnny Canuck with a saucier. Achowat (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the discussion has started to loop around on itself again, it already has once. As it stands I think the CON is in favour of removal Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no further comments and the CON is in favour to removethe flag I assume it's ok for me to remove these ? Gnevin (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I still don't agree that you have consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well 3 editors have engaged in the discussion and 2 are in favour of removing (and i'm aware of WP:NOVOTE) Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add a fourth voice, and a third for the removal of flags. They've always been problematic, as often the nation of origin has nothing to do with the cuisine of the chef in question. Sure, in some cases it might synch up, but in such cases it's redundant as we're already listing the chef in question's cuisine style as well. In other cases, the country of origin is completely unrelated: Hillson, Oliver, Irvine, Rubino, Comerford, Crenn, Cohen... it's a long list. Either way, it's useless information. 148.4.41.45 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I favor retention. Knowing where a chef is from tells a reader more about the subject of the flag. It has nothing to do with that chef's particular genre of cuisine. When in doubt, more information (not less) is better. --Cshashaty (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Who cares where they are from if it has no particular relevance to there food? Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this one but lurking, as I didn't want to be involved in yet another DrMargi-vs-the-world battle. But I'll add my dos pesos - while it's not the most terribly important issue to me, I'm against the flags. Quite simply, the "birth country" is one of two things: it is either the same as the culinary style, in which case it is redundant, or it is NOT, in which case it is irrelevant. I know, of course, that this has been stated by everyone else already.
I am generally in favor of the "more information is better" argument - as was the case with adding the scores. However, I'm only in favor of more information if it is, in fact, relevant in some way.
Additionally, it's a bit half-assed. Nowhere on the page does it explain what the flags mean. And American chefs, for some reason, are denied flags as if their country of origin is of no influence on them whatsoever. (Not that I think it should be whole-assed, mind you, I think it should be no-assed.) 67.247.27.99 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that's five votes for flag removal versus two against. How many votes makes a consensus? 148.4.41.45 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Votes don't make consensus, strength of argument and relevant policies do. If you would like an uninvolved administrator to help determine consensus, you can drop over to WP:ANRFC and ask. Achowat (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If so, we need to be sure the admin knows the Suffolk County sock farm (and their grudge) is weighing in here. That cuts the "votes" down by a couple. As for the US flags, this is an American show; we can assume by default that the chefs are American unless a flag signifies otherwise. --Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would you assume the average reader is going to assume that ? Gnevin (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, I forgot. Everyone who disagrees with Drmargi must be the same person, because there's just NO WAY more than one person could share the same opinion. Also, Achowat, "strength of argument" is purely subjective, and we know from previous incidents on this very page and other pages that Drmargi is involved with that she's more than happy to bring in an administrator she's traded "barnstars" (or whatever it is people whose lives revolve around editing Wikipedia use for bragging rights) with, that will start banning people based on her word alone. How's that for "consensus"? 148.4.41.45 (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, 2200 words about flag icons on the Talk page. I see nothing has changed here. When she really gets things stirred up, she just retreats and stays off talk for awhile, but she can't really change her preferred ways of acting. ***Let me boil it down. Consensus is when we all give up and say we won't fight (self-described) Dr. Margi. Lack of consensus is when we haven't yet.173.77.205.66 (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Four-judge episodes

At first, noting the scores from four-judge episodes was simple enough to do per episode - they were quite infrequent, so they didn't clutter the page much. The ICA producers seem to be doing more of them of late, and I think it might be time to unclutter the page. On the top, it currently reads: "In most episodes, three judges score the meal in three categories, with 10 points available to each judge for taste, 5 points for creativity, and 5 points for presentation, for a possible total of 60 points. Exceptions are noted for individual episodes." - perhaps were we to make it something akin to "In most episodes, three judges score the meal in three categories, with 10 points available to each judge for taste, 5 points for creativity, and 5 points for presentation, for a possible total of 60 points. Episodes with four judges and thus a maximum score of 80 are indicated with asterisks." (or, instead of asterisks, "have scores listed in red" or whatever we want to do to denote them...) - then we can remove the many individual notes. Cocktail episodes (where max score is 90) we'd leave notes for, as there have only been three of them thus far. 148.4.41.45 (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Asterisks as really small (especially on my phone) and a bit of a pain for text readers. Red would violate WP:ACCESS, I would suggest just adding an additional columns before the scores with the number of judges and maximum available points. This would be easily read and sortable. Gnevin (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)