Talk:Hot Ones

Lead Section Rewrite?

Came across this page via the New Pages backlog: I've broken out some of the lead into the 'Format' section, but the remaining introdution section is still a bit meandering - I think someone more familiar with the subject matter should break out a second section (Conception/History/whatever) and re-write the lead to provide a concise summary of the topic. I've bonked a template on there suggesting the same. Thanks! -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 11:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I broke out a History section, though I'm not super familiar with the overall history it is at least a step in the right direction. - Hockachu (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Color issues

Gonnym, could you please explain which part of MOS:COLOR was being violated and give some suggestions for how color could be included in the tables that would conform with the guidelines? -- Fyrael (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.

Also in MOS:TEXT#Color Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable.

The usage in the tables was purely trivial (not appropriate or representative). What meaning did the colors have in the order of the hot sauces? Colors are usually OK in places like in the awards table, where the result column has more meaning, but even that usage came up very recently at the village pump as something that was incorrectly used. --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The colors were certainly not "the only method used to convey important information" because they were not conveying important information. The rows were colored in a way that matches a graphic used in the series which changes from green to yellow to red as the episode progresses. So, there's really no other way to represent that and users, regardless of their ability, would find the same accessibility levels between that graphic and our table. I will look into the specific colors suggested in those guidelines so we can keep our text black and use an appropriate background color. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The colors were certainly not "the only method used to convey important information" because they were not conveying important information - Which is why I also quoted the second guideline which says Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense. emphasis in original guideline. As you have clearly stated, the colors are meaningless. Which is not only unhelpful for visual impaired readers, but also to almost any reader who isn't as familiar with you are with the specific color scheme used by the producers. That is the definition of a trivial piece of information. --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than removing this meta data, it should have been moved elsewhere.

If @Gonnym isn't happy with meta data decorating the episode information, it could reside in a "Trivia" section, that said it would include a complete duplication of episode information (which is why I would advise against that solution).

I don't agree with a wholesale removal of metrics related to each episode and consider it abuse/vandalism as these records were cited outside of Wikipedia (with Wikipedia being considered the source of truth).

That was 3 years ago, now that the page has been railroaded, there's 3 years of catching up to do. Isunktheship (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include trivia sections. Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not trivia, it's episode meta-data.. 72.197.149.131 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Should_trivia_be_allowed_on_Wikipedia? Isunktheship (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reintroduction of Completion status

‎Gonnym, while I agree the Notes were having increasingly trivial and unimportant information, I believe that whether the interviewee finished the wings is worth inclusion. In many ways Hot Ones is a game show, and when it comes to game shows, the results are almost always included, from The Bachelorette to Great British Bake Off. I wanted to see what the consensus was in this case. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless if this is game like or not (which I don't agree it is), look at the table from an older edit, almost all of them completed all wings. This in itself means the field is meaningless. Instead you can add the information about who didn't complete either in a prose summary, or to the episode summary itself. But again, if 95% completed, that isn't note worthy. Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has not been commented on more. I preferred the added sections too. I'd agree on a compromise that Gonnym suggested and simply including the incomplete sets in the notes section rather than copying and pasting Success: Yes, Dab? Dab for most entries.--51.6.48.21 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Non-episodes

Is there any specific reason the non-episodes, which are segments on other shows, are listed as episodes in the season list? Have I missed anything? If these are not episodes, then these should be placed in a specials sections. Almost all list of episodes articles do this like this. Examples: List of Rick and Morty episodes#Webisodes, List of Lost episodes#Specials. --Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Game Show and Episodes - Separate Pages

Proposing the game show has its own separate page. Also, perhaps having a separate List of Hot Ones episodes page. This page is starting to get crowded. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I actually came to find this page to see if the Game Show had its own article. It's really its own entity and deserves a separate page for production and release information. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support on the episodes. There are a ton of them, and they deserve their own page. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaq

SauceCastle, what you are doing is called original research and is not accepted on Wikipedia. What we display on this page needs to be supported by sources. If there is no source that says Shaq is on the Wall of Shame, then we cannot decide ourselves that he belongs on there. Also, as far as I remember, each time a guest fails they immediately add them right there in the video. Bottom line is that if the show hasn't declared him on the wall then we won't claim it here. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

SauceCastle, if you want to seem at all interested in collaboration, please respond. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't we make a section for guests that didn't eat all the wings,.but ate not in the hall of shame. Or maybe make it a subsection of the hall of shame? SauceCastle (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Coming to HBO MAX Feb 15

Many sources, none of them are great, but it looks like season 1 is coming to HBO Max on Feb 14, 2021

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/what-s-coming-to-hbo-max-in-february-2021-full-list-of-releases/ar-BB1dbqAB TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Add Bert Kreischer's reunion special to the list of specials

Title: "Bert Kreischer Returns For A Rematch Against Spicy Wings" Original air date is April 23, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7O05OzGJzg Rocalive (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wall of Shame

Why is this section being removed? BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated, it needs proper coverage by independent sources. Not Hot Ones' own twitter/X account or YouTube videos. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

that doesn't make sense in this context

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not about "themselves", but it's a list of, well, a Wall of Shame. Does the general reader of Wikipedia, who very likely not even might not have the faintest idea what Hot Ones even is, need to be presented a list of people who didn't eat all 10 rounds to understand what Hot Ones is? No, they do not. If it's important enough to understand the concept of Hot Ones, reliable sources would've reported on it. And I'm not saying they haven't, but it needs a decent amount of coverage to be mentioned, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

have you watched hot ones? the wall of shame is a concept created by and featured on the show. regardless of whether you think it's important it is a concrete part of the show. BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think, it matters whether or not reliable sources have reported on it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

please read the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I did and I responded to it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."

the wall of shame section cited a post made by first we feast, the creators of hot ones, listing the wall's members as of the post's date.

i kindly ask that you not remove this section when i add it back. BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how it works. See WP:BURDEN. I disagree with your reading of the guideline. I am not satisfied with this meagre primary sourcing. It's not about Hot Ones, it's about 15 people who didn't finish ten hotwings. And out of 330 episodes, this is a minor detail. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you Soetermans. glman (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

it really does seem irresponsible to me for one to go deleting sections of an article the domain of which one knows nothing about. by your logic 80% of the content of this wiki page would be erased as its only source is the show itself. BELDELTUBCHUGGER (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted, you can still view the revision in the article's history (deletions are used for copyright violations and solely disruptive edits, like grossly insulting or sharing personal information).

I'll remind you again, it doesn't matter what I know or think of Hot Ones, it matters what reliable sources say. If you will not or cannot come up with sources that do go into detail about the Wall of Shame, there's is no point in discussing this further. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Soetermans, there does not seem to be a secondary source demonstrating it is a notable aspect of the show worth listing the entirety of. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)