Talk:Project Runway season 3

message: I updated the Episode Progress Chart to match the format used in Season 2. Crunch 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the colors a bit, so that it's a little easier to read (only one episode so far, but it will matter later).  Basically, blue shades are good, red shades are bad.  :o)  I also added a color key at the bottom for easy identification.  I'll make these changes to the other seasons when I have the chance.  tiZom(2¢) 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nice work, though we might have to adjust the "top 3" and "bottom 3" labels as the season progresses and the groups shrinks and top 3 becomes top 2, etc.  Also, are we always sure who is in the top 3 and who is in the bottom 3? I seem to recall from last season that there was some dispute? Crunch 13:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Progress Chart 

message: I see that the chart has been prepared for next week's disqualification (diff)  To whomever does this next week:  please do not make the color too obtrusive.  I would actually prefer a grayish color, like lightgrey , but if it has to be a yellow, then lightyellow  will do.  I know it's a small thing, but the focus of this chart should be the winners and losers - not the fact that someone was disqualified.  Thanks!  tiZom(2¢) 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually debating between the yellow for WARNING=DQ or, as you say, the muted approach which wouldn't over power the more important content.  If you know how to do the colors just play around with it and change it as you like. I won't be around next Wednesday to implement it, so, as you can, see, I just put in the yellow commented out.   The only suggestion with shades of gray, of course, is that not all users can discern subtleties in gray so maybe use a tan -- #CCCC99  ?? just a suggestion.  Go for it!  Crunch 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disqualification on the episode progress chart 

message: I just see an anonymous user changed the names Katie Biassou and Narzi to "Katia" and "Nazri", respectively. The official website, however, states that their names are actually Katie  and Narzi .
Please give reference if you're going to change the contestants' name, otherwise I or other users have no choice but to revert the changes. Celticshk Talk 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models 

message: Project Runway has been auctioning off the garments made for each of the Challenges.  For instance, here are the items from Ep 4:. I'm fascinated with the winning bid as a rough indicator of the market value of the designer's work, and how that varies from episode to episode.  What do people think about a chart that shows the final winning bid price for each garment from each designer? --Tomlouie 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall hearing the auction mentioned on-air and I haven't seen it on the Bravo webiste (though I haven't investigated the entire site).  Since it's not part of the actual Project Runway show, I don't know if it should be part of a this article.  Maybe a spin-off article? Crunch 10:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get there from http://www.bravotv.com/Project_Runway, it's the link labeled "Buy Runway", in the row of links starting with "Rate the Runway".  I recall seeing a text popup during the show that advertised that views can buy items made by the designers.  Of course, the text popup refered the viewer to the www.bravotv.com url, rather than directly to the auction items.  However, it makes sense to perhaps start this content is a separate article, and see where it leads from there. --Tomlouie 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to me more like a commercial enterprise associated with Bravo, whereas this article is about the television show. Crunch 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In retrospect, it's probably against WP:OR too. Thanks. - Tomlouie | Talk 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction of Challenge Garments 

message: Regarding this edit, I was trying rephrase "Two models were eliminated because of Keith..." to avoid inferring that Keith's disqualification is to blame for both models being eliminated. Does "one too many models" work for clarifying? -- Tomlouie | Talk 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection was to the use of "than usual" -- nobody knows what "the usual" is or will be.  Did we know that there would be an episode in which models would choose designers?  People make this mistake all the time.  There is no standard or usual.  Anyway, it should be clear now to explain why two models were eliminated without being too detailed. Crunch 03:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two models eliminated" 

message: Look, I know it looks like on TV that they're only given three bins, but if you listen to Tim Gunn's Podcast, he says at time point 5:00 that "they can have as many as they want, even though no one takes more than three."  --Banpei 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tim's Podcast does say "unlimited".  I don't have my copy of the TV episode to double-check what episode said.   If the TV broadcast says "three", perhaps we can compromise and just say "they had 30 minutes to fill their bins with materials..." and leave out the "three" or "unlimited"? -- Tomlouie | talk 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you see... my mode of thinking about this is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people of thing they might not know otherwise, and the unlimited material thing kind of drives right into that point.  We could change it to your suggestion (which is a good one), but I think people would like to know that stupid little fact [that's driving me bonkers=)], rather than not.  Oh, and the broadcast makes no mention of how many they're given.  But then again, I reckon everyone that sees it will try to change it, leading to near constant changes.  (and speaking of bonkers, i can't believe Vincent didn't get kicked off)--Banpei 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewatched the episode (but didn't transcribe the actual quote, sorry!).  Tim in the episode says "three bins", which most viewers interpret as "only three bins".  I think your recent edit is good, since it doesn't draw attention to "unlimited", but I agree, it would nice to work in (as a footnote perhaps?) that the podcast clarifies that the designers could have used as many bins as needed. -- Tomlouie | talk 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TomLouie, can you help me out with Crunch?  I don't know why he keeps changing it back to the incorrect information?--Banpei 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No one needs to "help you out with Crunch."  Tim's podcast says "I think they had unlimited bins but no used more than three."  However, in the show itself, which is what this article is about after all, Tim himself clearly says, "There are three bins for each of you to collect your materials."  Then the camera shows a stack of three bins.  Maybe Tim forgot how many bins there were, hence the "I think" statement.  It would make sense that the bins were limited, to prevent squabbling and because space was limited.  As I mentioned to Banpei in response to the request for mediation (mediation?  wow -- a quick note to me would have sufficed, but OK), the number of bins probably isn't that important when we all step back and take a breath.  Why don't we just rewrite this and say something like, "Designers were given thirty minutes to collect recyclable materials. From these, they had to create an outfit."  The number of bins is kind of irrelvant, especially since the reader of the article isn't going to know how big the bins are.  Sound good everyone?  Crunch 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually he says "...and basically they can have as many as they want, though I think no one filled more than three", you juxtaposed the "I think".  Anyways, I think this is a problem where we're probably both right, and I have no problem with just plain saying that they had thirty minutes to collect the stuff.  You're right that this is all irrelevant (and a ridiculous thing to argue over), so I'm going to change it to the just plain thirty minute blurb.  --Banpei 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 306 

message: The model's name is being reverted back and forth, and I don't think just changing the spelling back and forth is going to settle things.  Without delving too much into original research, here's what I found:
*in favor of the spelling "NaRZi":
:*Bravo website
:*145 Google hits searching for "model" and "narzi"
*in favor of the spelling "NaZRi":
:*16,000 Google hits searching for "model" and "nazri"
:*Atlanta Journal-Constitution article
So while the "official tv show" website spells it "Narzi", there is enough mentions of "Nazri" that I think warrants some acknowledgement in the article of the alternate spelling.  At the very least, it'll reduce the number of Narzi/Nazri reverts, hopefully. -- Tomlouie | talk 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus Heidi always refers to her as "Nazri", unless she's pronouncing it oddly.--Banpei 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  It's just that no matter which spelling is up on the article, newcomers who haven't seen this talk page or page history will think that the WP article is mispelling her name, and flip to the other spelling.  Maybe people will stop doing this if a footnote or parenthetical remark indicates that the Bravo site currently has her name mispelled? -- Tomlouie | talk 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was hoping that adding her last name might give an air of authority to her name!  The footnote idea is good.  I like that better than parentheses.  Crunch 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like having her last name listed, although some editors may object that she is merely listed as "Nazri" on the show.  Maybe the footnote can address both the fact that the Bravo website has her listed as "Narzi", and that Nazri's full name is "Nazri Segaro".  -- Tomlouie | talk 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank God!  PS - I wouldn't give much credence to that website - for the first three episodes or so, they were calling Bradley Baumkirchner "Brandon."  tiZom(2¢) 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling: "Narzi" vs. "Nazri" 

message: Can we agree not to post the Episode Information --recaps and elimination chart updates -- until after the episode airs on the east coast?  On August 23, Episode 307, someone posted Episode information half-way through the episode that was all wrong:  winner was wrong, "out" was wrong,  one of the judge's first names was missing, the episode title was just a guess.  Waiting an hour until we have the information is worth it to keep  the article accurate.  Crunch 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Post Episode Info Until Episode Airs 

message: http://www.bravotv.com/_content/projectrunway/podcasts/Project_Runway_Tim_Gunn_Podcast_304.mp3
It's a huge mp3 file, but it has some interesting info about the Keith debacle at the very end.
They originally planned to have nobody get "Auf'd" for that episode. They needed to keep the episode/player ratio intact, one player out per episode. So they arranged it so that SURPRISE! No one is out.
But they changed it at the last minute.
I wanted to include this in the article, and I have a source for it too. Toastypk 06:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting bit of trivia.  In general, I think people try to keep articles "encyclopedic", so that such trivia isn't always included.  Maybe an  external Project Runway fansite is better suited for mentioning such trivia bits? -- Tomlouie | talk 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly believe this article should be about the television program Project Runway, not about things unseen that may have gone on behind the scenes and are remembered later and reported about by participants in ancillary materials connected with the show.  This type of minutiae is not central to the show, is not seen by everyone connected to the show and tends to divert the article into a collection of "trivia you didn't see" statements where editors try to one-up each other by adding unique and clever statements of this type. This article is not, Project Runway Season 3 Trivia or Project Runway Season 3:  The Uncut Version.  It's an encylopedic entry of the actual television series. 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I forgot to sign my post, above. Thanks for fixing it. Crunch 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting tidbit from Tim Gunn's podcast 

message: Some of the episodes have not been explicit in who is in the top and who is in the bottom (eps 7 and 8, in particular come to mind).  Listening to the judges, it's pretty clear what they think, but should we really be making these assumptions?  tiZom(2¢) 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it has been clear what the judges think and I think we make a mistake in assuming that there is always an even number of bottom 2/3 or top 2/3 in each episode, unless it is clearly stated.  This is particularly the case in episode 5.  Unless the judges very clearly say, "You had the highest number of votes," we are not sure.  We do know, for example, that Kayne and Angela were obvioulsy "LOW" for Episode 8, but what about Vincent? He was left hanging around until the end and told he was "IN," but was he also "LOW"? Crunch 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that the "LOW" assumption for episode 8 is questionable, I don't recall Uli being "low", although the judges did admonish Uli for creating the same 'looks' for every challenge, they also admonished Vincent for being 'safe'. I think both Vincent and Uli should be considered 'IN' with Kayne being the only 'LOW'. Vera26 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't find Tim Gunn's podcast to be particularly reliable. He seems to have recorded it some time after the show was taped and we have noticed obvious discrepancies between what he says what is shown on air. Whether this is due to his faulty memory of what happened or, as is my opinion, due to his lack of knowledge of what editing actually shows on air, we do not know.  HOWEVER, I strongly feel this article should reflect what is shown on Project Runway the TV show, not on what we learn later patching together Project Runway with the podcasts, web site or other interviews.  If we can't tell if someone is "HIGH" or "LOW" it's not a crime to just list them as "IN" or "OUT."  I'm not sure  either if re-doing the chart based on the order the designers leave the runway would help.  This is not always reflective of a ranking of best to worst.  I think it makes sense to just follow what is explicitly said on the show.  We know who is IN and who is OUT.  If, in addition, it is stated who is HIGH and who is LOW, we can add that, with the understanding that we may not always have HIGH and LOW designers, or equal numbers of HIGH and LOW designer each week. Crunch 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I still have them all on TiVo. Do you have questions on specific episodes? Crunch 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Progress Chart:  High and Low 

message: If you see the episode of season two where people present to Tim Gunn and the panel, you will see Kanye briefly. It is why I added it to his table. thanks.  — Please sign your posts on talk pages. The preceding comment was added by 24.80.232.128 at 02:36, 13 September 2006. 
I think this fact needs to be referenced, citing the exact episode on which he was seen. And his name is Kayne not Kanye. Crunch 11:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kayne 

message: Michael did get a high in new this episode? I missed part of this episode but since Angela and Vincnet came back maybe their names should go together in the elimination of the episode summary. To elaborate, maybe put the order in which Heidi eliminated people. 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael 

message: I think that, for episode ten, Vincent and Angela should both have another out square.  I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know how, and didn't understand the code already there. PantherFoxie 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vincent and Angela in regards to Progress Chart 

message: It appears there has been some back and forth editing on the Ep 310 description, much by anonymous editors. I have changed this.  It is not necessary to say why Keith wasn't brought back (and it was not explicitly stated in the episode) and it also raises the question why previous winner Angela wasn't brought back. Also, there were two bullet points describing the episode and other grammar and punctuation errors were present. Crunch 11:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understood, the designers that were brought back (a) had won a challenge, and (b) did not receive anything for it (immunity, etc.).  They were just told at the time that there were "special privileges" to winning that would be announced later.  Keith received immunity - that was his prize for winning.  Angela and Vincent were not given immunity, but rather (unbeknownst to them at the time) the chance to come back if they were eliminated.  I think this is important info, and should be included in the episode descrip.  Also it should be included that they had to win in order to stay in the competition.  This info would just make this a more complete description.  tiZom(2¢) 03:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ep 310 Description   

message: Can someone re-check the model elimination chart?  It looks a little bit funky.  For instance, only 2 models were eliminated on episode 11, but it shows 4.  I would fix it, but I don't have access to previous episodes.  :o\ tiZom(2¢) 03:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model chart 

message: In episode 11, Uli won, and the other three, including Laura, were described as falling short.  Some want to have only 2 low here.  The only thing that could lead to this is that the last 2 were declared "in" together.  This was done solely for dramatic effect, because the expectation was that they may eliminate two designers, based on promo spots.  However, the usual "low" rating should apply to Laura, Michael, and Jeffrey because that is how they were separated in the judging.  Heidi said, "Most of you had trouble with this challenge, but one of you did not ... Uli."  Then she laudry listed the problems of the remaining three.  This laundry-listing procedure is the major marker of receiving low (or hi) status.  Therefore, Laura is in the low category also.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can debate the value of the hi/lo status (I think it is real, and discernible), but just regarding your "most" point: the most is defined by what it is not when the judges discussed the situation, and when Heidi said "but one of you did not ... Uli."  That labelled the rest of the designers in the same low status; which we know they discussed clearly as all falling short of satisfactory in the judging/discussion portion.  Just two cents.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 14:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Guðsþegn. I'm not going to change the chart myself, as I always feel that consensus is a good idea, but to me, it was stated extremely clearly in the episode that all three of the other designers did poor jobs. There's no reason for me to suspect that they thought Laura's dress was any better than Michael's or Jeffrey's. The judges made it quite obvious that all three sucked, and there wasn't any debate whatsoever about who had won the challenge. While I'm completely with Crunch on the fact that the chart requires some subjectivity and reading into the episode, this case, in particular, is clear-cut. -- Kicking222 17:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designer Chart 

message: Does anyone know what happpened to the individual designer articles?  As recently as October 3, if I recall correctly, there were articles for Uli Herzner, Laura Bennett and Kayne Gillaspie, as well as the others that still remain.  These articles seem to have disappeared and none of them were tagged as Articles for Deletion.  I am aware that Laura's articles and others survived a vote for deletion ealier in the season. Can anyone clear up what happened?  Crunch 11:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kayne survived an AfD (see ), but then was deleted by an admin a month later (the admin's statement was simply "fails WP:BIO". However, since the AfD did not provide consensus, I'm going to bring it to WP:DRV. -- Kicking222 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Laura's AfD ended in a keep. Uli never had an AfD, but obvious claims of notability. All three will be going to WP:DRV. -- Kicking222 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. It appears an admin deleted these bios instantly without going to AfD.  I contacted that admin (User:Alkivar) for an explanation over a week ago after sees his actions marked simply  "fails WP:BIO" but have not received a reply from him. I don't want to say this is an admin abuse of power, but the thought has crossed my mind especially since Laura and Kayne survived AfD and Uli would meet the same criteria as Uli. Crunch 12:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Designer articles? 

message: I suggest we remove all of these from the episode summaries because I believe that the results are different for the west coast and the east coast. I have seen minor differences on the results. Also some of them are not relevant if you have not seen the episode, such as "Who is right in this fight?" --kralahome 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked having the viewer polls in this article. They don't add any encyclopedic value whatsoever, whether you've seen the episodes or not. -- Kicking222 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewer Polls