Talk:Hell's Kitchen (American TV series) season 4

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hell's Kitchen (American TV series) season 4 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Number of contestants

Resolved

It's worth noting that this season has 15 people and not 12. (09:54, 2 April 2008) 12.34.246.4

The number of contestants are already indicated on the page.SpikeJones (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My link.

It was removed, although I do understand. The full "Hell's Kitchen" blog, with weekly episode reviews featuring snarky commentary =P, is not yet set up. When it is, may I post THAT link? I'd most appreciate it.

They aren't JUST recaps, after all. They go into much detail and then add some humorous banter and such, blah blah. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a link exchange. I suggest using a site such as DMOZ or SirLinksaLot for what you are trying to do. SpikeJones (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but plenty of other WP pages include links to episode recaps, reviews, etc. of the show. Why not this one as well? James D. (Cinemaniac86) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Those links shouldn't be in the articles in the first place. I suggest reading WP:EL and WP:NOT. DiverseMentality (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, including ONE link to an outside site that features weekly reviews is completely and utterly permissible. It is a professional network, not a fanblog by any means. The full "Hell's Kitchen Fodder" website is not setup entirely yet. But when it is, it is only ONE link that will take readers to a page featuring a review of each episode. Nothing more, nothing less. And since it would be the sole link for this page, I do believe that it meets Wikistandards and criteria.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you shouldn't be trying to add a link to your own website. You have not established that doing so is a NPOV, or otherwise not self-serving. If your goal to getting your site linked from WP is merely to draw more traffic, then that will get it shot down rather immediately... and since WP links are NOFOLLOW, you won't get any search engine bump from it anyway. But I digress.. Does the site have any sort of notability, write-ups by 3rd party non-blog mainstream press pieces? (if so, share here for discussion...). Does it accept advertising? (If so, chances go down slightly...) Secondly, if the only thing that your site adds is a recap, then you need to establish why the site is to be used as a valid reference for the recaps that are already here. Does your site add anything to the article's content that can't be added to the article directly? If all your site consists of is snarky comments of show recaps, then WP is not the place for you to include it. You need to establish why your site is to be the one for all the reviews, rather than using TwP, Jokers, or any of the other more established reality-TV recap locations. Submit the site to SirLinksaLot or DMOZ, two resources that are directly supportive of what you're trying to do. SpikeJones (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer

Which one is the ringer? Because the way it stands now, as a retired Chef from a major city 4 star hotel, I'll tell you I wouldn't allow any of these jokers in my kitchen. There has to be a pre-selected ringer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.37.99 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be trite but this page isn't for discussing the show, it's for the article. I notice that a talkpage banner has not been added to the top of this page, sorry for missing that. Padillah (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Switching Teams

Is it a fact that Matt was going to be eliminated but was forced to switch, or is this merely an assumption made from the narrator's comments or did I miss something Ramsey had said? AISept8 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You totally missed the end of the show. Matt asked to go to the girl's and then Ramsey made the decision and let him go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.100.14 (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw that - I'm asking whether or not Matt was going to be eliminated, b/c the color bars on the chart are perhaps suggesting too much. AISept8 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> I understand now, but your original question was not distinct and lacking in communication skill. The chart has been updated.

Color Scheme

Can somebody do some work on the color scheme? Who thought Black on Dark Blue was a good combination? Padillah (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we really need "purple" (Contestant was going to be eliminated but was forced to switch teams instead)? This has never happened. Thus far no one has been made to switch teams. The only switching was done by Matt at Matt's request and by Jen because she volunteered. Padillah (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with "indigo" (Contestant was nominated for elimination by Chef Ramsay and eliminated). Wouldn't the "OUT" be indication enough they were eliminated? How many indicators do we really need? Just use "green" (cause they were nominated by Chef Ramsay) and the "OUT" speaks for itself. Padillah (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me weird, but personally I find the number of colors in the elimination chart to be distracting and quite overbearing. If there are so many colors that a reader needs to constantly bounce thier vision to the legend to understand it than it needs to be toned down. I've been forced to totally ignore the chart as have every person I've personally spoken with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.35.193 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 409

Please re-view the episode. Petrozza was asked to nominate two members and he did: Louross and Jen. Chef Ramsay chose Louross to go home. Then, after Louross went home, Chef Ramsay called Matt to stand with Jen out front and made them switch teams back to their original. In no way did Chef Ramsay nominate Matt for elimination (yes, he reminded Matt that he is lucky to be there, but that's not the same thing) and Petrozza nominated Jen in the first place so why would Chef Ramsay need to nominate her again? Review the show and see if I am missing something. Padillah (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chef asked Petrozza to pick one nominee. 75.89.238.43 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He asked for two nominations, and then asked Petrozza to pick which one was going home. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Hollywood restaurant opened

A heads up that the HK winner is getting a "senior sous chef" position at the restaurant. --Madchester (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Black" team

As wrong as they were User:65.7.204.60 has a valid point: What are we going to do when they make a single team next week? Padillah (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing we did on the other season's pages. SpikeJones (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:HenryLarsen

User:HenryLarsen has been constantly adding Ramsay show quotations stating that the winner will be an "executive chef" at Ramsay's new restaurant. Firstly, those quotations are unsourced; there is already a wealth of reliable sources from press releases and publicity describing the show's stated prize. More importantly, even if the details are true they are superfluous and violate WP:NOT. There are already sufficient reliable source describing the exec chef position; adding every instance it is mentioned on the show is trivial and indiscriminate information.

The editor has been adding those superfluous quotes to devalue the the recent media releases from Ramsay's publicist, stating that the prize is actually for a "senior sous chef" position. Historically the show's advertised prize and the actual prize are not always teh same. (Both Michael and Heather didn't get the exact position offered on the show) I don't see why the editor needs to be so defensive to add those quotations to skew the legitimate response from Ramsay's publicist. --Madchester (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mad

Mad says that the quotations regarding what the ultimate prize will be are 'unsourced'! Can you imagine?!? 'Unsourced'! One has to wonder if Mad has even been watching the programme! He must not have been, because the quotations have come, week after week, FROM GORDON RAMSAY'S OWN MOUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.72.68 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 July?

~~Sorry but the next week should be aired the season finale... so why do the article say that the finale will be on July, 8th? --151.66.5.21 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok it will be divided in two part as usual, sorry --151.66.5.21 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HK S04 winner.

http://www.rlslog.net/hells-kitchen-us-s04e14-hdtv-xvid-orenji/#comment-385377 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.169.79 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation. Also not a true answer. It is commented later on that page that both doors handles turn but one is bolted to give both contestents a greater drop when the door doesn't open 76.195.117.185 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized

This page was vandalized with false information, listing Petrozza as the winner. While I was rooting for him, he ultimately didn't win. I have fixed the article accordingly. Cosmo2006 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaan

Is it worth noting that she didn't appear in the finale? --72.79.201.217 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Elimination Table

I fixed the color scheme, however I believe that Chef Ramsey's "reason for elimination" is distorting the table. Is it possible that we could put the reasons underneath the episode description along with "winning team, losing team, bottom 2 or 3, and Eliminated"? Andrew097 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put his reason under the episode summary, and the new colors and the chart without the episode summary makes it look much more organized in my opinion, I will do the other seasons if I get the thumbs up from you guys. Andrew097 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this and will revert back to it. There is no reason for the big red swath after a contestant is eliminated and the chef's summary is clearly misplaced. It goes in the episode. Padillah (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

In the articles for seasons one, two and three, there is an epilogue giving information regarding the status of the winning chef and some information regarding the status of the runner ups. Is there any way to find out this information and add such an epilogue to this article?Tlatseg (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems

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

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

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

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