Talk:Only Connect

Hi, I've done the best I could with the ratings but I'm not entire sure if they're correct and as I don't have the time to carry on with these I'm dumping them here in the hope someone can source and add the viewer stuff,

If it helps I've been going by the Waterloo Road layout table below, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Individual episodes of game shows—whether it be episode results or ratings, sourced or unsourced—do not meet WP:N nor WP:EPISODE and fail WP:NOT#TVGUIDE and WP:LISTCRUFT. This is information that does not belong on Wikipedia. Please stop re-adding this content. AldezD (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No!, Consensus above was to include (but trim), Not to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement but thousands of shows here have ratings because they're notable and most certainly apart of the show, NOTTVGUIDE and LISTCRUFT are irrelevant here. As I have said a million and one times you're more than welcome to trim these in order for these to meet our RATINGS standards. –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus above is based solely on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT. Those are not valid reasons for inclusion of information that does not meet WP:N nor WP:EPISODE and fails WP:NOT#TVGUIDE and WP:LISTCRUFT. This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses, and the specific details of ratings for individual television game show episodes does not meet WP:GNG. There are no WP "RATINGS standards", and the guidelines linked above address why this content is not fit inclusion. You have not addressed these guidelines in your response and simply circle back to WP:OTHERSTUFF as your argument for inclusion. AldezD (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how you percieve it at the end of the day consensus is consensus, The ratings are encyclopedic and are clearly useful to the article, I would suggest you go and do something productive with your time. –Davey2010^Talk 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Three users agreeing to retain info based upon ILIKEIT, OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL does not merit inclusion of WP:IINFO and listcruft detail within this article. Again, please address the guidelines that have been presented to you which detail why this information is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please engage in the discussion. AldezD (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Numbers are irrelevant - Consensus can be formed by 2 editors or 2 thousand editors, I don't like the list and I've never said I have, All articles have useful features regardless of what the WP states, Indeed OTHERSTUFF is relevant here - There's no logic in deleting ratings from one article whilst allowing them on others - There needs to be consistency - Either they all go or they all stay,

As I said the content is encyclopedic and indeed helpful to our readers - Please bear in mind all readers like to read different parts of an article whether that's Infobox, CHaracter list or indeed ratings,

Consensus was to keep and so far I'm not seeing any sort of valid reason to remove (No these don't fail GNG or LISTCRUFT either). –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm with AldezD and have been consistently of this opinion, whenever it's been discussed, that these tables detract from the article. The ratings are of limited value and interest, especially as they are a) incomplete and b) provided with no overview or context. They aren't "clearly useful" except to give an idea of a) when each series was broadcast (which could be achieved more effectively and concisely) and the approximate size of audience the show attracts (which again doesn't require figures for every episode). The sheer amount of detail actually detracts from the (limited) usefulness of the information. The ups and downs are mainly because of the show moving between channels or changes to scheduling, but none of this is explained. As a short prose overview, or as a compact graph, the data would have some value; as a long list of tables of dry numbers it's a data dump. I also wonder whether lifting a block of data wholesale from a single source like this is defensible on copyright grounds. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect you !voted Support in the RFC ....., The tables are extremely long agreed however consensus was to keep .... there was no consensus to trim or to collapse ..... I've taken the trim approach route as that's the most sensible choice here, Nope because it's not copied word for word,

An RFC was done and those that wanted to comment did so and the majority !voted Oppose (of its removal) so that's it, We don't override consensus because we disagree with it as that's just disruptive - There's many consensus's here I've disagreed with but you accept that consensus and move on, No amount of policy naming and what not will change anything, Consensus was to keep and that's that as far as I'm concerned. –Davey2010^Talk 13:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A "consensus" established by a 3–2 vote does not become binding and inviolate just because it happens to coincide with your view. I'm not going to lose sleep over their inclusion, but these dull, bulky tables simply present minority-interest data that would be much better communicated in three or four sentences. Something like: "The first series of Only Connect on BBC Four attracted an average audience of X00,000, rising to Y by Series Z and regularly topping the ratings table for the channel. Ratings rose to an average of X million when the programme transferred to BBC Two, but dropped to an average of X when the show moved to Friday nights, before rising again when it returned to its established Monday-night slot." And I note that you don't address my point about the single source (from WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.") Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If consensus was against the inclusion of these then I would make the exact same effort to keep them off ..... I run by what consensus goes with not based on "I disagree with consensus so I'll do it my way" which is what's happening here, One cannot do more than to run an RFC and hopes it gets a lot of comments ...., Ratings tend to go by one source which I believe is Barb ?, I disagree there should be more than just a sentance –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

More constructively, a summary table similar to that at Waterloo_Road_(TV_series)#Transmissions_and_ratings, which you suggested before, would be an acceptable compromise (though I still think some context would be useful, while steering clear of WP:OR). I'd do it, but it appears that the data is incomplete (though I haven't checked the BARB data to see if the blanks have now been filled in). Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here - When I said "trim" I did indeed mean have it in the exact same layout as the Waterloo Road table which I had already started above at #Ratings, I thought everyone knew that ?, For the record the long tables that are currently here should not be kept they should obviously be condensed into one table hence the above. –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to explain - In the #Ratings section under the "Only Connect collapsed box" - In the first table The "Average viewers (millions)" column is what I've added along with the 2 numbers in those 2 boxes, the Waterloo Road box is there as a guide so people should know how it should kinda look,

Hope that helps, –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Series table that summarizes by season the Average viewers (millions) is acceptable. Listing a rating for every single aired episode fails the guidelines already mentioned. AldezD (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added data in the summarised form in this edit, most of the work having been done by Davey2010 in the Ratings section above. Notes:

• The Guardian source for 2.5 million in series 10 referred only to the finale, not the series overall.
• Series 3 data omits episode 4, and series 11 omits episode 1.
• I've not given an average for series 1 or 2, as there isn't enough data available.
• Probably something still needs to be done for condensing the data on specials. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv for your work on this - much appreciated :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice to know who devised/created the game. It would also be nice to know if VCM herself writes her introductions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.120.159 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Talk pages are a place to discuss the article itself, not the topic. We can't include anything in Wikipedia unless it can be reliably sourced, so this is not the place to speculate about whether Victoria Coren Mitchell writes the intros herself. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced listcruft of champion teams by season. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your focus on this list is bizarre given the actual issues with the article's content—for instance, the "Title" section is entirely unsourced. In contrast, calling the list of winners "unreferenced" is bizarre and flies in the face of how television articles work: the primary source of the episodes themselves covers this very simple information. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Use Template:Cite episode to source content from television episodes. Currently it is unreferenced listcruft. AldezD (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

AldezD - If I can source these things than so can you!, The time you've spent on reverting could've been better spent on actually sourcing the list!, Also just to note the list isn't listcruft and doesn't even come close to being one, I would suggest you read (or re-read) WP:LISTCRUFT. –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I'm removing unsourced minutia, which you are reverting and re-adding. If you want to add the list, source it. AldezD (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The content isn't minutia and again doesn't come close to it, "If you want to add the list, source it." - I already have and had actually linked to this in my last reply which you conviently missed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, Great. Thanks for your contribution of sourced information. AldezD (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry for being funny earlier but it foes gewnuinely annoy me when people remove something that could easily be sourced, Anyway happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note I've obviously sourced the content but the UKGameShows source needs replacing as I'm under the impression it's simply been copied from here, Annoyingly on the BBC wesbite they have all of the team names .... but no participant names, They started to include for a about 3-4-5 series it but stopped again so at present it's a case of "Work with what we have", I have no objections if anyone wants to replace any of the source, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The sources for this are the finales of each series themselves. No other sources are needed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Well I can't please everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)