Talk:The Biggest Loser season 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leaderboard[edit]

Is there any reason we can't add this to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.129.253 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This table is Original Research, and none of this information was ever announced on the show. Savvy10 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research. It's a routine calculation that anyone can verify. 110.174.226.34 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that this table exceeds the limits of routine calculations, which specifically refers to simple adding and converting. Besides, we've never included the table in the article in the past. Savvy10 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a debate in the past on this. It boiled down to a bunch of people who wanted it on the page against one guy who refused to even allow it in the discussion section. This board was seriously removed, several times, from the discussion section. I never understood the argument. I would back inclusion on the main page, as my guess is that the dude on a vendetta has found a new hobby by now.122.172.42.102 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(My opinion is that multiplication and division are routine calculations, even if they're not explicitly listed in the non-exclusive "such as" list. But putting that aside...) If you look at the source code of the table, you can see that in fact it *is* a routine calculation. The source of the table only includes the starting weight and the current weight, not the BMI or percentage of weight lost. The table is actually rendered using the template "The Biggest Loser/rankingrow"; if you look at the source of that template, you see that it uses another template for computing the BMI and the percentage of weight lost. These formulas are verifiable. So there are two reasons I think this should be included in the main page: 1) the calculation really is verifiable and is a routine calculation for anyone with a calculator, and 2) the templates do all of the calculations anyway, so on a day-to-day basis there is little risk that even the routine calculation will be mistaken. All we have to do is put in the current weight correctly each week, and that's already on the main page. The templates do the rest of the calculations. 110.174.226.34 (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to having this table in the thread, and actually I think it'd be a useful resource to have on the page, but just sticking by past precedent. If including it in the page itself is the new consensus, then great. 173.88.94.212 (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC) That a boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.120.199 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be majority agreement that moving it from the talk page to the main page is acceptable. I've made the move. 110.174.226.34 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAMS[edit]

In case no one has noticed I think someone may have made an error upon showing the contestants and their teams because: the red team has 3 people, the yellow team has 2 people, the blue team has 3 people, the green team has 3 people, the orange team has 2 people, the purple team has 2 people, the pink team has 3 people and the black team has 2 people. And Corey Pinkerton isn't even on a team! If this is not an error please tell me why there are 4 teams of 3 and 4 teams of 2.

It had no source, so I removed it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the reason is that they started with 7 teams of three and only two from each team made it to the ranch. then arron and the other yellow came back, arron was orange, and the other yellow was blck. corey should be shown as purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.160.0.220 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i'm just saying that lisa was eliminated this week, so she has to come out of the round chart. if you won't do it, then i'll do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.120.199 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting...[edit]

I can't wait any longer. I know The Biggest Loser comes back on in 2 weeks but I've been waiting since May. Did you know that on the previews it showed some dude in week 1 losing 41 pounds! I thought 34 pounds was alot. I can't "weight" until season 10! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants[edit]

Corrected a number of spacing issues. Jsholm (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Guys, got some good news and some bad news, good news is, there will be a semi final week which includes the final four, bad news is, it will start at the end of week 10. so two players will be eliminated in week 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.120.199 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF????????[edit]

The week 6 weigh in: +4 +1 +1 -2 -2 -4 -4 -7 -7 -7 -14. 3 PLUSSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE F*CK??????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pluses are actually not surprising considering the sodium laden food they had to eat plus they are working there bodies to hard without a recovery period, which Jillian said as well. When you push to hard all the time the body will plateau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.147.28 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I still think Frado got a +4 on purpose so he could have a big number next week. I mean he was like "I'm expecting a +6" I mean what the f*ck. He was obviously trying to gain weight. "There was no game play involved." that was bullsh*t. But I guess Jesse and Elizabeth's +1 may have been caused by those reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I'm so sorry[edit]

I was trying to edit the weigh-in percentages in history but I totally screwed up. Could someone fix it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, never mind I fixed it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Well i say, Fix it now loser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.120.199 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week 7 Elimination[edit]

How was Anna eliminated with just three votes? There were six people on the team. Wouldn't Anna need four votes to be eliminated? Couldn't Elizabeth have also gotten three votes? I'm confused how Anna was voted out. 173.88.94.212 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. The remaining two could have voted for Elizabeth, and she certainly had a lower weight "loss" that week. My wife figures that the others voted for Anna, they just didn't have time to show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.127.31 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk pages appropriately[edit]

These talk pages are not chatrooms—this is not MySpace. They are here to discuss the content of the articles and how to improve WikiPedia. Please use the talk pages appropriately. I have removed the most blatant MySpace-style comments. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOB SAGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are here two forms of weigh-ins?[edit]

I haven't watched this season. I don't understand.--Peterxj108 (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Biggest Loser: Couples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Biggest_Loser_season_10&oldid=1216333696"