Talk:Deal or No Deal (UK game show)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deal or No Deal (UK game show) article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Christmas Specials Section

I removed the section on Wrighty's game, since it was quite poor. It doesn't explain if this was the game for the afternoon or evening. Taking out the high numbers after you've dealt is only arguably lucky, since it doesn't affect what you win. Likewise Noel revealing £3000 in his box doesn't "increase Wrighty's win" - he still won the same amount. --PaulTaylor 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The May 13 Episode

I guess this is going to need some discussion. For anyone who didn't see it, I'll try to explain what happened briefly: the Banker offered a swap instead of the first offer, which the player took. He then no-dealt to the last two boxes, the one of which besides his box was the box he'd swapped out to begin with. So the Banker offered him another swap as his final offer, instead of any money (as opposed to offering money, then a swap if it's rejected, as normally happens). He didn't swap. The board at this point had £75,000 and 1p, and his box turned out to have 1p. The Banker called again, and "as a thank-you for his birthday present" (the player had given him a present of some Noel Edmonds CDs or something), he said he'd also get whatever the viewer competition prize was (£15k as it turned out).

Anyway, I've taken his name off the "1p Wins" list (since he didn't win 1p), but added an explanatory note, and a pointer to the Viewer Competition section where it's explained in more detail. If they start referring to him on the show as being in the 1p club I suppose I'd agree he should be put back on the list with the note. Anyway, my feeling is that it's a bit too much text for one show's events as it stands. Thoughts?--PaulTaylor 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


He was mentioned on the show as being in the 1p club, but that of course was before the offer of the viewers prize. I quite like the way you've done it.

I think it needs to be made clear that he was given the viewers prize as a thank you for the bankers birthday present, not because he wasn't offered a final offer, because that would make the banker seem "soft" and I don't think that was their intention at all :) Nzseries1 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


He was given the viewers prize as a thank you for the bankers birthday present, not because he wasn't offered a final offer - what twaddle. He was given the viewers prize because Glenn Hugill was in danger of having his head stoved in by a mob of angry pilgrims. -88.110.169.67 09:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was the reason given on the show, but of course you're right! Nzseries1 09:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that as the article currently reads, there's no explanation anywhere that he wasn't given a proper final offer. This is definitely misleading, so I shall endeavour to find the best way to fix it.--PaulTaylor 10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit to the 1p Wins section (minus the description "Banker's controversial tactic" which is POV). I think it's pretty illogical to argue against what was there. It may be implying that the swap offer was the reason for the additional prize, but it's only doing that - there's no causal link stated. The reader is left to draw their own conclusions. I agree that readers will universally infer a causal link, but that's fine since there is one anyway.--PaulTaylor 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your version allows the reader to draw their own conclusions - I believe the previous version did not. I'm happy to relent, for now :-) Nzseries1 10:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Section

Whilst I agree with the editors who have repeatedly removed this link, I don't think we can justifiably keep doing it whilst allowing other fan websites to stay. Either they all go, or they all stay - I'd prefer them to go, but I'd be interested in hearing others' justifications for favouring some over others. --John24601 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The owner of this website, or whoever keeps ptting it there, have already posted a link to a site similar to this one, in which the content is vrtually the same. Also the link (Thesecretcastle) redirects to a forum. Hosted by proboards. It also seems that they are trying to promote the site. Al of these are links to be avoided per WP:EL Thenthornthing 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but whilst I share a particular distaste for this website's inclusion, I don't see how it is that different to alot of the others that are there.--John24601 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
True, i have deleted another link which breeches the WP:EL i am going thorugh them and deleting any more which prove to breech it. I tried to notify the people @ Secret Castle, and found i had to register for that, which is another breech of WP:EL So gave up. Any more sites which are likke that i will delete. Thenthornthing 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 More links removed

  • I have deletted two more links from the External Links section, the first i have previously removed about a month ago, the website blatently breaks WP:EL which should be abided to, because mainly it's full of pop ups. The second site i deleted isn't too bad, the reason deleted was the game is a duplicate of This Site which has he Deal Or No Deal game. I believe that one link is sufficient. Cheers Thenthornthing 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan sites?

It's turning into a list of fan sites, does the 'secret shed' add anything that the other links do not already provide? My impression is that it does not. Wouldn't it be better to just stick with links to the official Endemol and Channel 4 sites? Geoff Riley 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think, and i've said all along that the official sites, and 1 game site is sufficient, but consstatntly get into arguments with site owners because they want their site featured, i agree with above so will make the nessacary changes. Thenthornthing 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's better. I would recommend that anyone who wants to add a link should discuss it in here first... and I don't mean listing lots of sites here instead! Geoff Riley 09:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am finding it very annoying that the secretshed which is a site that has been around for years is being taken off the external links when a site that is far newer is seen as acceptable! There is an unofficial dond site called www.dond.co.uk which should feature but has been removed but a site that started up recently which is "associated" with dond.co.uk has been allowed because it contains "stats". Furthermore please do not mistake thesecretcastle as the same site as thesecretshed. The secret castle does not have anything to do with the established site and should be treated as such (at one point both links were moved simulaneously even after the secretshed had been sat on the page for many many months! If you are going to make rules stick to them. The only external links should be for C4 and endemol which is not a true reflection of the sites out there but seems to make you lot happy!

The secretshed was the first site to have screen shots of the show within its daily updates. It was the first site to have an organised vist to watch the show being filmed. http://www.ilovedealornodeal.co.uk/ seems to be accepted as a valid external links even though its newer and adds no further value to wiki and other fan site.

(86.137.222.173 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I have to admit I was advocating the removal of all external links other than the Endemol and Channel 4 ones; however, the layout of the stats in the 'ilovedealornodeal' site is very clear and provide an apparently accurate historical record of the shows episodes: for this reason I did not pursue it's removal.
I am not sure about the link to the on-line game although it does illustrate the mechanics of the game play extremely well.
Finally, please be assured that I was not singling out the 'secret shed' as a bad reference, it was just that I saw it being added by a non-registered user and so raised the whole matter of external sites being added at all. Geoff Riley 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it (www.thesecretshed.com) was added ages ago by me as a registered user and I had to justify its inclusion at that point which I did successfully but because some nutter decided to immitate the site (that in itself shows the success of the site) the secret shed has been removed again from Wiki. Seems unfair to me and is against the spirit of wiki ~(86.136.249.10 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

The secret shed is a site which is not specifically related to Deal Or No Deal, where as the other sites/pages are. The only relevance to DOND on that ste is "Boxwatch" , not needed though, and a forum which is not allowed per WP:EL If you wish the site to be on here contact an administrato but, I , and other feel it should not be herer per the reasons I have put to you. Thenthornthing 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The secret shed as show commentary every day. It has a log of shirts that Noel wears each day, It even has been the only site to arrange its members to go on a trip to watch the show being filmed.

Wiki is not where our members have ever come from so this is not an attempt to advertise and I am not going to waste anymore time on it but allowing anything more than the official endemol and C4 websites on the external links means that you are promoting other "fan" sites and that is wrong, hypocritical and shortsighted. Oh and be aware that box watch is just a tongue in cheek history of the development of rankings on the forum so I suggest you research before making statements. (86.136.249.10 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I did research thank you very much, and it is not in the relevance of the article. I think you may have to reseacrh WP:EL to amke sure you realise the facts about why these links are being deleted. I am willing to agree with people that only the official sites should be there, therefore I shall delete the game site and the otehrs now. Thenthornthing 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you researched I apologise. Your reference to boxwatch made it look like your research consisted of looking at the home page and making judgements.

If you are removing all sites apart from official sites such as C4 and endemol I will agree to disagree with the rest because atleast you approach will now be consistant. (86.136.249.10 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, if this is going to be viewed by loads of people, then this should remain profeesional and just keep out the fan sites and stick with official ones. Anyway, this isn't an advertising website (as stated in Wikipedia's guides). It is for people to find information about the subject. LB22 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to open wikis

Whilst we're on the subject, should links to the open-wikis be taken off. WP:EL states that if linked to, should have a substantial number of editors, if linked to. This site has two or three, do other's also think that they should be deleted? Cheers, Thenthornthing 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photos

Do we really need the photo of the proposal? It does not hae anything to do with the section it is placed in (christmas specials). If we are going to keep it, then we should have a section detailing the proposal in full with the picture beside that. StuartDD 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that, it wasn't even in a Christmas episode. It's just one moment that happened in about 500 episodes so I dunno if it deserves an entire section, it should probably just be removed entirely. BillyH 13:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It was me who added the photo, god knows why i added it there, i can't actually remember! I will move it, adn if any further moves are required do so! Sorry about that Thenthornthing 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Monty Hall Problem

Someone has added an awful lot about the Monty Hall problem. But, 1. Does it belong here? And 2. Can it be sourced, or is it the opinion of the author?

I personally am not sure that all the information provided is accurate. If it is accurate however, I think it should go on the main Deal or no Deal page, rather than the UK specific version. Nzseries1 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's been added a few times already, both here and to the main Deal or No Deal page. I keep deleting it - I believe I am the 'Adolf' in the charming edit summaries. It's just wrong for so many reasons. It inauspiciously starts with an accuracy dispute tag (so why whoever it is seems so insistent on adding it I have no idea). Then it's broken up without explanation into two 'versions', whatever that can mean in an encyclopedia. Version 1 has a reference to some kind of computing lecture notes from Stanford that seem to bear utterly no relevance to anything written. What is written there is so laughably incorrect that if anyone actually believes it, I suggest we meet up and gamble a bit on some playing cards. They will soon not have enough money left to be able to afford the internet connection necessary to keep editing this article. Version 2 is generally factually correct, but badly formatted and irrelevant without a Version 1 for it to be a rebuttal of. The whole thing is written target at the American version of DoND (dollars and briefcases). So I'm going to delete it again now. Hopefully if anyone disagrees, we can discuss it here instead of just edit-warring for ever and ever.--PaulTaylor 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm John Nash. Making you laugh is just a by-product of my work. 2. Playing cards has nothing to do with this scenario. In a game of poker, you know your hand. Here, you don't. In a game of poker, you do not know the hand of others. Here, you do. Quite the opposite. So, please come up with some more profound criticism.

  • Who mentioned poker? There are other ways of gambling with playing cards. Personally, I was envisaging some kind of card-based simulation of DoND with twenty-two face-down cards, 11 red and 11 black. But anyway, I can't really come up with any particularly profound criticism because every single thing that was written was factually wrong on such a fundamental level. Anyway, this is moths old so I don't know why I'm even bothering with this except that leaving criticism unanswered offends my aesthetic sensibilities.--PaulTaylor 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Deal or no Deal

What was the game on 30th June? - it hasn't been added to the list yet. StuartDD 10:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viewer Competition

I edited the Viewers' Competition section to reflect the news regarding Channel 4's premuim-rate stuff. Probably will need updating when the new series starts and we see how the competition now works. Also, I got rid of the list of days when the amounts in the viewer boxes were unusual. It made sense to begin with but then they started doing it more and more and the list just got bloated and silly, and after all, WP:NOT#INFO. (I suggest the same possibly needs doing to the Deal or No Deal Classic section sometime soon.)--PaulTaylor 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning somewhere that the viewer competiton has been rather obviously and poorly edited from the end of the recording to after the first break in the Season 3 shows? MGCooke 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think the competition actually has been poorly edited to the middle of the show - I believe Noel mentioned it explicitly in the first show of the season. I think they've just put it in the middle and don't really know how to handle it there so it looks a bit clunky. Could be wrong though.--PaulTaylor 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black & white box values

Why is there this bouncing back and forth of the colours of the text in the boxes? Can anyone explain why a few should be white and the rest black (or whatever it is)? I'm confused by it. Geoff Riley 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine it's someones crap idea of a joke, or just plain vandalism. Thenthornthing 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What is this? What 'black & white' boxes? I agree with Thenthornthing, this is either a rubbish joke or vandilism LB22 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banker's Highest/Lowest Offers

These two new bits in the Records section are a bit confusing. The highest offers list appears to list both genuine and hypothetical offers, whereas the lowest offers list just seems to be offers made in play. And is it really useful information anyway?--PaulTaylor 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced info

This article is seriously becoming worse and worse for not citing its references. I've deleted countless edits, by 1 person in particular who will get a vandalism warning next time. Please do not add info. which isn't sourced, it'll just be deleted. CheersThenthornthing 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, dates are useful to have - but must be sourced, i cant stress that more! Thenthornthing 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


As an observer, can I ask how you cite sources for imformation contained within the program? The program itself is the source but how should you quote that?

Lots of the info on the page that is tagged as unsourced is absolutely accurate but the only proof is if you watch the program. How to cite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.246.6 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    • By linking references from known websites etc. Thenthornthing 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know who kept saying that Deal Or No Deal is filmed in Barnsley. I (along with many others) can confirm that it is filmed in Bristol as I have been to the studios and was in the audience for two shows in 2006. Whoever thinks that Deal Or No Deal's filmed in Barnsley needs to visit the studio. I can easily source and confirm almost any new information that belongs on the Main Page. Just ask me. James Emtage 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Citing infomation (where mthe header states to) is urgently needed, along with most things in the entire article. I believe the person on about the show being filmed in Barnsley is vandalising the page and knows infact it is filmed in Bristol (as hundreds of sources state) should someone change it from Bristol to Barnsley just give them a formal warning. Or even a tempalte I find useful for this {{Subst:Only warning}} Thenthornthing 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contestant Names

I have added two more names to the Largest Won Amount List but I don't know their surnames. I would like to know how other users of Wikipedia find out the contestants' last names. Usually, the contestants' last name is only mentioned once on the show. But how do they they know how the names are spelled? I need to know. James Emtage 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The closing credits for the New Years Eve show last year listed the full names of every single player up to that point [1]. For ones from this year, the official Endemol site has a few on their News page in the Highlights of (month) Shows section. [2] BillyH 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you BillyH. If the dates of the largest won amounts are to be added again, they need to be sourced, first. That also includes whether or not the amount won was an offer from the Banker or in the contestants' box. Any thoughts on the sourcing? Much appriciated. James Emtage 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A good site for that is [3], that's got statistics and show dates for every show in one page. BillyH 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the show on New Year's Day. All the contestants for 2007 were there. James Emtage (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saturdays instead of Sundays

Anyone know if this change is permanent. It caught me out this week. I was going to edit it in the article, but I'm not sure if it's only moved for the next few weeks. MGCooke 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's permament. You can tell for the shows that they're still recorded for Sunday. Chanel 4 is currently showing the Lord of the Rings films on Sunday, so they've probally moved Deal or no deal to Saturday to make room for those. Wait and see what happens after they're finnished before editing the article. StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Noel is now saying on air that the show is on Saturday, it was only the first one or two that he referred to as Sunday. I've been checking the TV listings as far ahead as I can and it seems to be staying at 7:15 on a Saturday for the forseeable future. I've edited the article to reflect that the weekend show has moved. It can easily be changed back if necessary in the future. MGCooke 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's beggining to look like it's recorded for saturday (although he still says yesterday on Monday), but it should say Saturday. StuartDD contributions 15:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Of The Sexes

This section needs fixing. I've noticed the totals of the prize amount for each gender have been added, but not properly. They need to be fixed ASAP. Many thanks. James Emtage 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe rather than noting here, you could fix it yoursefl ;) Thenthornthing 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did try to fix it, but it was not successful. The words and the numbers became very mixed up. James Emtage 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dealornodeal.png

Image:Dealornodeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Information

Again, please read [4] Thenthornthing (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box 17

Anyone notice how box 17 seems to have big nos in it? Today...£100,000 Sat...£70,000 and on games at home (card game) it seems to hold loads of money too! Mysterious...LB22 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Quote: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deal or No Deal (UK game show) article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. " Thenthornthing 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I am just suggesting that we should watch out for it in the coming weeks. The last sentence was merely a joke. LB22 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

Hi, the article is in excedd of 950kb. Wiki classes anything above 150kb as long, so this is super long. I know certain things hae already been split, i.e the banker section, but still more needs to be done to reduce it;s length. Remember a good article is not nessacarily the longest one. Cheers Thenthornthing (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1p Details

The 1p wins needed some explaining. I have confirmed and kept the changes as brief as possible. Noel has said that the 1p club is a caravan. Igor's game was disasterous at the finale. It might require editing but it's been confirmed. I heard about the Banker's Highest/Lowest offers some months ago. When they were removed, why were the Largest Won Amounts and the 1p Wins also removed? James Emtage (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think mostly stuff is being removed just because the artice was getting very very long. Even now it's >150KB, and Wikipedia Is Not An Indiscriminate Collection Of Information and all that. Anyway, I tidied up the new stuff a bit. The outcome of a 50:50 chance is never 'unbelievable'.--PaulTaylor (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed - there was nothing "unbelievable" about his box containing 10p. Nzseries1 (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree. I only added the necessary text. Whoever added the word "unbelievable" obviously thought that it was a way of describing the game's finale. I do not think that opinions belong on the Main Page. I have to admit, Igor's game did have a disasterous end.James Emtage (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The mummy

A brief mention is made of this, but does anybody have the slightest idea what the title of "mummy" means? There ought to be something about it here. And is there a "daddy" title as well? I've a feeling I've heard it once or twice but I'm not sure. -- Smjg (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DealUKLogo.jpg

Image:DealUKLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing label from box

To whoever keeps adding the following piece of text:

"...because the independent adjudicator had somehow forgotten to put in there."

You don't know that this is true. This was never stated on the show. Perhaps they did put it in the box, but it was stolen out of the box before it was sealed. Perhaps termites got inside the box and ate the value. Perhaps it was an act of sabotage by a disgruntled employee. Whatever the reason, we shall never know. But you can't include this as it is speculation.

I have provided my reasoning, however you keep reverting my revert without explanation. If you want to make a case for your edits, then please do so; until this happens, this text is not going in. Nzseries1 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)