Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (British game show)

message: I'm surprised there isn't a section for the £1,000,000 winners and would it contain Major Charles Ingram? (*ooooh* controversial!) LookingYourBest 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  £1,000,000 Winners 

message: People keep adding her to the £0 Winners list. I don't remember her, and I can't find a single source that mentions this supposed contestant, and not even ITV's WWTBAM page has ever mentioned her. Can anyone provide any confirmation that such a contestant even existed? Until then, I'll continue to remove it. Haemorrhage (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma North 

message: I remember seeing Emma North coming away from the chair with nothing after getting one of the easy questions wrong.
Haemorrhage I think you are wrong to remove references to Emma North from the article purely because you cannot remember it nor can find any media reports on it.  Why do you feel so duty bound in your role of editing Wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.188.73 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are wrong to add references to Emma North, despite an very telling lack of mention in any list (including the one on the ITV official WWTBAM website) and indeed on any website at all (besides Wikipedia and other sites which have copied the whole list off Wikipedia), purely because you claim to remember it. It's possible that it happened and I and everyone else I can find missed it, but I'd be more inclined to keep it on the article if anyone would provide some kind of source besides just a claim. And I don't feel at all duty bound, it's just personally very annoying to see a "fact" I'm reasonably sure is wrong to spring out of nowhere on here with no basis. Haemorrhage (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Apologies for my unnecessary bad temper earlier. Still very skeptical, but if several of you really believe this happened, then I can't argue with that I suppose. Do what you want. Haemorrhage (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added her again. Just google it, the clip is all over youtube etc, and the wwtbam wiki has her listed. 92.21.203.237 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Emma North 

message: In the section on Phoney a Friend I do find it a bit unbelievable that any one person could have helped 200 others to appear on the UK show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.224.23 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoney a Friend 

message: Rumors are starting to surface on Buzzerblog that the UK show is going to adopt the clock format from the U.S. version. Check it out here:
http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/uk-millionaire-goes-us-style/
--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed addition of this to the article.  Wikipedia does not include rumours that are cited from blogs as they are not reliable sources.  When, and if, an official announcement is made, or it is reported in a reliable source, it can be added then. Thanks.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I have just been informed that the upcoming shows of the UK show featuring the clock format from the U.S. will air either this Sunday or Tuesday (I don't know which day; I don't live in the UK)... Once you see the shows, then and only then can the information be reinstated.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clock format rumor 

message: Apparently the 'Fastest finger first' round used graphics generated by a Risc PC and Millipede Imago.,  Does anyone know if there are further refs available for this? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few mentions of it: , Eureka, product directory, , .Smallman12q (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - some of those are new refs for me. I'll add a couple time soon, although I'm sure there must be some more reliable sources around in the printed media. That strategy still needs a bit more thought! -- Trevj (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a general interest behind-the-scenes book published about the show, which describes some of the security procedures for using the software that handled the questions. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the title of the book, nor do I still have access to a copy. If I recall correctly, a RiscPC is clearly pictured, but not explicitly identified in the text. -- 81.149.152.4 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics 

message: I propose that the list of episodes become its own article. The list makes up well over half the article (making the article much longer than it needs to be) and other television shows have articles dedicated just to that show's episode list. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article proposal 

message: The article mentions that the Switch lifeline was used in 2002, but I have no knowledge of this. Can anybody confirm with substantiation? Khairul Islam 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch lifeline - 2002? 

message: "Tarrant pre-recorded two other celebrity episodes to be shown in early 2014"
"Pre-Recorded"?? What does that mean? It was recorded before it was recorded?? What? Just the word "Recorded" is sufficient.78.150.46.252 (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pre-recorded" means "recorded in advance", as opposed to recording live or at any normal/regular interval. The word "pre-recorded" in that sentence, with the context of "Tarrant's final live celebrity edition aired on 19 December 2013", shows that even though those two celebrity specials were the last to be broadcast, they were not the last to be filmed. Bilorv (talk)  18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Error 

message: User Loyalmoonie deleted the "Celebrities" section in this edit, which I (Bilorv) then reverted here. My change was then reverted here by Ianmacm.
The section consisted, essentially, of a list of celebrities who appeared on WWTBAM. On the plus side, it could be said that this list showed how influential the show was - it was able to get dozens of high profile celebs to appear on the show. On the negative side, WP:TRIVIA has been cited: claims could be made that the list is unnecessary and contains far too much detail.
I have brought this to the talk page to avoid edit warring. I currently support the inclusion of the list but am open to discussion. Presumably, Loyalmoonie and Ianmacm want the list to be deleted. Bilorv (talk)  15:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unsourced, but must have been lifted from somewhere if it is correct. It is also a classic long list which does not enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. A brief mention of the celebrity editions is all that is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd presume it's from the primary source: the episodes themselves. I'm sure we could find refs if we were going to keep the section in some form. What exactly would a "brief mention" consist of? Name-drops of a couple of more famous guests, something along the lines of "In X episodes, Y celebrities appeared", just a simple "Many celebrities appeared on the show" integrated somewhere or something else? Bilorv (talk)  17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the view that the only contestants we should list that didn't win are those who appeared more than once.--Launchballer 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities Section 

message: There's been recent disruptive edits in removing Ingram from the top prize winners. Ingram won the top prize, but had it suspended due to cheating. I believe he should be listed there, as he did actually win the prize, even if it was suspended for cheating. Given the spectacle around his cheating, it's also worth having this information in the article. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 16:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A British court ruled that he did not legitimately win the prize and he was not awarded any money from the show, so he should not be listed as one of the £1,000,000 winners. The section describing his time on the show and the subsequent controversy should remain in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Charles Ingram as a top prize winner 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120822075317/http://www.themillionairethree.com:80/ to http://www.themillionairethree.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713070556/http://millionaire.itv.com/viewergame.php?howtoplay=1 to http://millionaire.itv.com/viewergame.php?howtoplay=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the 'incorrect answer' part of the controversy section, we are told, citing a seemingly-not-especially-reliable-source, that the correct answer was 12 strokes. And, in a way, that is 'arguably true' given the options that were offered, but the explanation we are currently given, based on the afore-mentioned seeming-non-RS, is somewhere between misleading and just plain wrong. 
In theory you can win a tennis set with one stroke (or even none, if your opponent withdraws or gets disqualified). If your opponent doesn't withdraw or get disqualified, in theory you still only need one stroke to win - both players double-fault all the way until it's 5-5 (or 6-6, or 7-7, etc) in the tie-break, and then an ace for one player and a double fault for the other wins it in one stroke for the player who hits the ace. (Note that neither player needs to play a stroke (hit a ball) to double fault - the server can swipe and miss until he loses the point on a time fault - of course he might risk getting warned and disqualified for 'not trying', but that applies to all these scenarios, including the 12-stroke and 24-stroke ones, and as already mentioned, disqualification allows one of the players to win with no strokes). If there's no tie-break in the set, and no withdrawal/disqualification, then you'd need 4 strokes - both players double-fault all the way until it's 4-4 (or 5-5, or 6-6, etc) in games, and then 4 aces for one player and 4 double faults for the other wins it in 4 strokes for the player who hits the aces.
But I suspect it may be impossible to find a proper Reliable Source which says this, so I'm unclear how to fix the problem without using forbidden Original Research. Does anybody have any ideas about what to do about this? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theory you can win a tennis set with one stroke (or even none) 

message: Editors, a Bot has removed the TV logo from the article's Infobox for breaching Copyright. We therefore need a Free-Use image of the logo ASAP, since it feels wrong not to have any image of it. GUtt01 (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. GUtt01 (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Free-to-Use TV logo for Show Needed! 

message: Would the anonymous IP user changing the date formats on this article please stop.  Please see MOS:DATE for the manual of style on how dates should be written.  There is also no need to change every mention of the word 'million' to all-capitals.  Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there, I've just requested for a page protection which will probably stop the user from vandalizing the page for a while.
Pepper Gaming (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to date formats 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The "£1 MILLION" text has been re-inserted into the game rules table but as far as I know, it has not been in the broadcasts though I have only seen a small amount of shows on Challenge. Any proof of this text been shown in there? Iggy (Swan) 14:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  At it again I see... 

message: Hi all, I've noticed a back-and-forth on how the million pound rung on the ladder is formatted. Could we please come to a consensus on this? 
All classic episodes formatted it as £1 MILLION from 1998https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqFeK7ZAA9I-2010.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TblJYH0LXFQ In 2011 it changed to £1,000,000https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfsXW7bCIzk and remained like that until the show stopped in 2014. It was referred to as £1,000,000 in the first of the reboot series,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMIQWQqRjJc but since the graphics change it is back to £1 MILLION.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cuNy7OlVSs With that in mind, would that make £1 MILLION the most accurate formatting? Stewartmurdock (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no justification for putting this in capital letters, and it is against the manual of style. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, in that case format it as £1 Million? Or £1 million? Stewartmurdock (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  £1,000,000 or £1 MILLION? 

message: The 1950 comedy film Champagne for Caesar depicts a similar quiz, where the prize doubles if the single contestant gives the correct answer, but everything is lost if they give the wrong answer, or they can choose to take the winnings before the question is put. The film article refers to Take It or Leave It (radio show). 92.3.58.154 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champagne for Caesar 

message: Should their be any information on what happens if there are any visually impaired contestants in an episode? Visokor (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Stewartmurdock (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  visually impaired conditions? 

message: Can you believe it? That idiot Harry Redknapp blundered before the £1000 mark becuase he got the Rambo question completely wrong because he thought it was Willis not Stallone! Visokor (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiot Redknapp 

message: the first part of this about the syndicate is so confusing. 
"The Phone-a-Friend lifeline provided multiple instances of controversy during the show's run. In March 2007 various UK newspapers reported that an organised syndicate had been getting quiz enthusiasts onto the show in return for a percentage of their winnings."
phone a friend is a lifeline once already on a show but they keep mentioning it in relation to getting people on the show initially
--Chorrall (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the first sentence reads a little wierdly. Could probably go. Stewartmurdock (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the syndicate 

message: I consider replacing  with  or conversely and BrickMaster02 reverted my first and second edit. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You wanna know why I reverted them? Because it didn't make any sense. If they were from press releases, then the "via" would be used. What you've edited were over pieces from sources not endorsed by the show or production company. And way to say something, one month after it happened. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  |via= or |website= 

message: I previously mentioned that the Ingrams were trying to re-open their case evidently denying what they did was wrong. This addition was based on the epilogue at the end of the last episode of Quiz. Visokor (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please supply a cite that verifies this?  Also the wording of it is inappropriate.  It is not up to Wikipedia to decide that their actions indicate "denial".  It should also avoid time relative terms.  The reader has no idea what date "To this day" means. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingram section