Talk:Deal or No Deal (British game show)/Archive 1

message: I don't have time to do it at the moment, but how about making "Records" a short list of bullet points of all the records and then having a section on memorable players and games, like Nick's 1p, Marie's game at the weekend with the perfect start before it all went wrong, the "Black Widow", that sort of thing...? Bluejam 10:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records 

message: It's worth noting that Trevor himself removed his picture from the main DOND page, as he doesn't want it on the site. Think it should be removed here too? BillyH 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be. Wezzo 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider it done. Also, given that the contestant in the 'missing game' has previously request that their details were kept out of the public record, should they really be here?
PS. Accidentally deleted Trevor's name from the discussion - it's now restored.
Elcondor 16:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored it again. If this continues, the first thing to do is add a message to the Talk page of the IP in question. —Whouk (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would block the IP user if I were you so that vandalism to the picture of Noel Edmonds will be eliminated.Manm hk 21:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This particular IP address 84.64.131.67, keeps vandalising the picture of Noel Edmonds. How should we deal with it? Manm hk 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that, as evidenced by earlier edits, it's not just that IP address. Is it a dynamic IP ISP? Can ranges be blocked? If not and this persists, it may be necessary to get the page semi-protected, but that would stop IPs who wish to make genuine edits. —Whouk (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you go about getting it semi-protected?--Aliaslola 02:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - and see the policy at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. There might need to be more evidence of persistent vandalism by several IPs before it would be agreed to, but it's worth a try if this situation continues (not least to ensure that we don't get caught by the three-revert rule. The other option is to raise it on the administrators' noticeboard and ask for general assistance/advice. —Whouk (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The terms and conditions of the Channel 4 press ofice specifically forbid the use of its images "online" unless you get permission from them in writing. --Bonalaw 06:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, I'll replace both instances of the image with the DOND logo, which is clear to use in this context. Elcondor 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Should there be mention of the fact that until today's show they were using a system that wasn't producing random numbers and that there were only five different sequences which, once you'd place the order from the starting number, you could work out which amount was in every box? MitchellStirling 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is mention of that, in the "Filming" scetion. --Bonalaw 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequences

message: ...I just read the entire article and have no idea how the game is actually played, except that people somehow trade boxes with a "Banker" or something.--MattShepherd 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tough one to explain. I read loads of explanations of how the game was played and never understood any of them until I actually watched the show. --Bonalaw 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astoundingly... 

message: The black text colour doesn't go well with the blue background. It should be changed to white text, but is that going to be better or worse? Manm hk 20:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to white and emboldened it. —Whouk (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, entirely my mistake. I've removed it. TomPhil 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed it too, they added it sometime this week. It's just superficial though. Shen 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the numbers are now raised from the inside of the lid. It's not a shadow effect, it's an actual shadow. You can often see the "plinth" behind the number when players close the lid back down.--Bonalaw 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Box Values

message: Stock phrases perhaps, but to describe a lot of those as catchphrases is really overstating the case somewhat. Some people seem intent on adding everything Noel ever says to that section. --Bonalaw 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catchphrases

message: can whomever edits the page for updates PLEASE WAIT until all replays of the show are over? janets game (31st march) has just been ruined, as im watching it on more4, as i dont get home im time for the c4 version.
thankyou.
Hi, I was the editor who added Janet's game to the record page. I apologise for spoiling your game, and will try in future to wait until after the replays are over Destroyer of evil 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's bad, someone on the 8th March added details of a game that won't air until the 4th April. I reverted it soon after, though it's still spoiled it for me. BillyH 14:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SPOILERS

message: Do we really consider this to be a reliable source? I don't think it is at all reliable, and there is no proof that "Gaz" was the Gaz in the show. It could just be some guy asking for attention. Thoughts? — FireFox (U T C) 19:00, 23 May '06
:He has posted similar information on dond.co.uk forum, where many contestants are members, and it's clearly the Gaz that was on the show.
:Anyway, what's so controversial about stating that the swap offer may not have been broadcast in some cases? Whatever you say, you can't PROVE that every swap offer is broadcast (unless you have inside info to say so that is). --84.69.109.138 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ..."or swap offer was not broadcast" 

message: I myself am a fan of the show, but I do feel (and I hope not solitary) that too many users are being over zealous and adding useless and sometimes pathetic updates on the main page, of what happens on shows.
The information I am referring to is added by users frequently, and often has no real benefit to people reading it, and has becomes a sort of "log", made up of trivial matters. An example of what IS interesting to read is "The open box incident", which I didn't know about until reading it here- its interest factor is plighted by the fact that it was something which viewers had ever considered happening, nor executives planned for.
An example of something unnecessary is the very long story about Lucy, or some of the actions of the banker.
However, I do think that the "Episode History" is a great idea, and well made, somebody has helped Wikipedia a great deal- thank you.
:Agree it needs a bit of tidying up, while avoiding removing the most interesting bits. I would cut out some of the early bits of trivia which have now occurred several times (swap at the end, £250,000 in box, players missing shows etc.) as these are no longer really notable. For the trivia section I would definitely keep things like earliest deals, best/worst opening rounds, most commonly won amounts etc. as these are interesting records/facts.
:The Lucy bit can certainly be much reduced in length and I don't think we need detailed descriptions of all four 1p games now. 
:I also suggest creating a spin-off article for the "Banker" character. --84.71.49.68 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is it really relevant to mention Morris's appearance on "The Price Is Right"? A large number of DOND contestants have appeared on other gameshows, a number of different shows in some cases! --84.66.44.118 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is rather pointless knowledge. Double Dash 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much unnecessary information 

message: Did anyone watch Friday Night with Jonathon Ross on June 2? It had Noel Edmonds and he said that they are currently filming shows for airing in October but there was something even more interesting. He said that so far 2 people have won the highest amount of money, £250,000 however these shows will not be aired to keep the winners anonymous. - Erebus555 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What my take on it was that they had had 2 winners of the £250,000 but we won't get to see them before October because they won't be aired for a couple of months yet. I didn't really see that take on what he said.--Mikay 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, well... I watched it again, and I see that now. Hmm, well.. I think he was joking. --Mikay 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathon Ross 

message: It says in the FIlming section:
"This was perhaps best demonstrated when Noel asked the audience whether, in the player's position they would 'deal' or 'no deal'. At one contestant's apparent ignorance or misunderstanding of the show's concept, suggesting the player say "No Deal" and keep playing; Noel led the audience member from his seat to a fire exit, where he was directed out of the studio by Noel, into a car park - showing that it was night-time when filmed."
The person actually suggested the contestant say "Deal" and keep playing. I think he said it was a good board, so the player should gamble and Deal and keep playing.  Double Dash 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more like it. --Bonalaw 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in 'Filming' 

message: Just to point out that the thing about winning £20,000 is wrong where it says that 2 people have won this amount by no dealing to the end; it's actually 3. Vanessa, Morris and Ron all did this. I'm not sure whether that leaves the total amount of winners at 10 with 7 dealers, or increases it to 11 winners.
:Well, whatever it was, add one, 'cos tonight's player just won it. Double Dash 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmation - 13 people have won it as of 22 June 2006. Here's the list. Dealing: Becky (28 November); Andy (30 November); Dave (5 January); Lisa (6 March); Dave (23 March); Pete (11 April); Francesca (1 May); Rich (25 May); Frank (18 June); Shirley (22 June). No Dealing to the end: Vanessa (2 February); Morris (6 May); Ron (16 June). Just gone through the Series 1 and 2 lists. Double Dash 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: £20,000 winners

message: Is The Banker a tennis fan? Because he was coming up with all those little Wimbledon puns in today's game... Double Dash 16:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. I'm not a tennis fan, and I could come up with loads of puns off the top of my head. Besides, the Wimbledon thing was planned so he had plenty of time to research and prepare. --Bonalaw 07:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Banker 

message: I've just been doing some calculations. Assuming there are exactly 230 episodes in Series 2, the first episode of Series 3 will air on 4 October 2006. Can anyone back this up? Double Dash 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deal or No Deal: Series 3 

message: According to a post on C4's DOND message board, Joseph will be returning to the show as a contestant in one of the August episodes. I don't know if I believe this though. Can anyone find anything to back this up? Double Dash 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of contestants who post on dond.co.uk forums have confirmed he returns at some stage (August or September). I believe Steph who is currently on screen in the wings said he came back shortly after her game. --84.69.88.83 13:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's now returned (September 9). Double Dash 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph from Series 2 

message: Wow, I really can't wait to watch the episodes from Series 1 again, it is amazing!!!!! James Forde 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeats 

message: This is absolutely stupid, why don't they keep the first/second runs all in one, just leave it run, meaning that you don't need a second run for October. James Forde 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean? Mikay 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on who 'they' are. It's either Wikipedia or Channel 4. Double Dash 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Run 

message: Wasn't Jason's surname von Wilgeroth or similar? Or was he just related to the von Wilgeroths? Does anyone remember from the show, or can anyone retrieve it from Bother's Bar? Bobo. 06:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilgeroth

message: I've removed the following paragraph
:Recently Edmonds has become increasingly bizarre in his on-set behaviour, at times eating fruit, squaring up to contestants inches from their face, sitting off camera and even off stage, massaging contestants to relax them, smelling their shoes, writing on their hands, running around and shouting.
I don't watch the program, but this doesn't seem credible. If you put it back, then cite a decent source for it. exolon 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Millions of people do watch the programme, and I think I have seen Noel do all of those things on the episodes I have watched. The only source I have for this, though, is Deal or No Deal itself. However, no regular viewer would dispute that paragraph. TomPhil 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why somebody who hasn't seen the programme would remove something from an article because it doesn't sound real. Would you remove the parts about monsters on the Dr. Who article if you had never seen it?! Mikay 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an apples and oranges argument. Dr Who is well known for being a sci-fi show, so monsters would obviously be a part of that. The actions attributed to Edmonds seem extremely unusual and outlandish behaviour for a primetime gameshow host, and look like the kind of subtle vandalism that sometimes creeps into articles. It's a common sense thing. These articles are supposed to be written so that someone with NO knowledge whatsoever of the subject can understand them. My first reaction on reading this paragraph was "Smelling their shoes? Writing on them? Get the **** out of here that's got to be a load of ****." We could still really use a cite for this stuff - if Edmonds has been acting this strangely on the show, some TV reviewer or journalist must have commented on it? exolon 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth of the matter is that the only problem with that paragraph is that it calls things bizarre which are in fact entirely mundane. If you read the list again you'll realise that it's a list of entirely ordinary things. It's not like he was getting contestants to lie down on the table while he massages them - it's talking about shoulder massages, which the President of the United States did recently for God's sakes. Eating fruit? Gosh. Sitting down in odd places? One of the central aspects of the show is the way Noel roams around using the whole studio. As for "smelling their shoes", I can only assume it was done in reference to something that the contestant said, as opposed to a spontaneous act of olfactory fetishism. The paragraph should remain gone, but only because it is so inconsequential, not because it is in any way slanderous. - --PaulTaylor 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: Anyone else feel that some of the tone of the criticisms directed at Deal or No Deal appears to be slightly biased? I don't feel the paragraphs of "Some say... however others argue... while the other people argue..." Might need a cleanup? AStaralfur 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: On August 29, 2006, contestant Nick Diamond became the first person to get to the last six boxes with only 'red numbers' remaining. 
I'm sure there was a contestant who managed to get to the final 8 boxes, which were ALL reds - I'll need to find details of her game to confirm, but if it's truely, one that's incorrect and two it shouldn't be there anyway because he had already dealt prior?AStaralfur 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure this will have been the case before, only not in active play. Double Dash 10:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nick was the First to get 6 reds remaning, Georgie Had 6 Blues at the end aswell. So Nick was the first person Duff12 Duff12 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nick Diamond - Incorrect fact? 

message: In the section "Format" of this article, the penultimate paragraph reads "Episode 67 marked the first edition of the second series" but then the final paragraph states "The second season started with episode 235 on August 28"... Which is it!?
:Both. The second series began of Episode 67, and the second run (season) began on August 28. Double Dash 11:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: "Dealed" is not a word in the English language, yet the Deal or No Deal articles have all become full of it. Thoughts? — FireFox (talk) 17:49, 07 September 2006
:In this article it is only used in the phrase "no dealed". While "dealt" should obviously be used rather than "dealed" when a contestant accepts an offer, the verb "to no-deal" only came into existence with this show, so I think "no-dealed" and "no-dealt" are probably equally valid. --84.69.125.143 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No-dealt" doesn't sound right to me. I think the terms "dealt" and "no-dealed" are fitting for this article. Besides, Noel says "no-dealed". I've heard him say stuff like "you no-dealed at £20,000" when a player does so and then loses a big number (or something to that effect). Double Dash 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doublr Dash here. Definitely on the dealt - Noel says dealt. — Gary Kirk | talk! 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought... 

message: I've noticed the opening paragraph has the statement that it NORMALLY airs at 4:45pm, when in fact in my opinion it NORMALLY airs at 4:15pm. At the moment we're in extenuating circumstances with the recent Heart attack of Paul O Grady, and Richard and Judy want their holiday, hence the move which is only temporary. 82.34.196.245 01:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. Double Dash 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normally airs... 

message: A couple of ideas to split the topic:
*Deal or No Deal (UK) Show Records
*Deal or No Deal (UK) Catchphrases (See WQ Box)
But keep the first three paragraphs in the Catchprases section and write three or four paragraphs outlining the main records for Records and Facts. If anyone else is in agreement, I'll do this tomorrow afternoon. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started work on show records. Should be ready for me to put a link to in a couple of days. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Now working, link above enabled. Working now on shortening the section on the main page. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Catchphrases section has now been split! The link to it is at the very bottom of the main page here on the DOND page of Wikipedia, in a box like the one you can see to the right. So, all done! Of anyone has any other suggestions for splitting, let me know, ta. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: WOAH! This section is getting too big. That's why I created a separate topic for it; shouldn't most of this be put in said article? Double Dash (Talk to me) 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Records/Facts Section 

message: I haven't actually seen this show, but could someone add some text to explain exactly what the "1p club" is? It's mentioned a few times but never defined. Mrjeff 18:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1p club 

message: Never mind this "one theory is..." nonsense. The simple truth is, Glenn Hugill is the Banker. This is well-known in DoND fan circles and there is no ambiguity about it. It's him. No question. --88.110.46.81 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fan circles" who WANT to believe it's him, most likely. Until we see proof of what you say - that Hugill IS the banker - people will ignore you completely. Double Dash (Talk to me) 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't prove it, but then I can't prove that it's really Noel Edmonds hosting the show and not an animatronic approximation voiced by an actor. And I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can. --88.110.220.13 12:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on, of course it's Edmonds hosting it. That's just being stupid now... Double Dash (Talk to me) 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it, then. --88.109.125.191 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You prove that Glenn Hugill is The Banker or I'm not having this conversation. Double Dash (Talk to me) 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, we're on the same footing, proof-wise. It's the actual Noel Edmonds presenting, and it's the actual Glenn Hugill playing The Banker. It's not as if this isn't already well-known. This "nobody knows who the Banker is" business is rather akin to people insisting that Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson were real people - it's a fiction, maybe worth mentioning as a fiction, but not one that a reference work should be playing along with. --88.109.16.187 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is a highly silly position to be taking. If you want to keep up your 'comparison', then the difference between the assertions is that on the one hand, Noel Edmonds is listed as the host of the show, and animatronic technology hasn't anyway advanced to the point where it could be indistinguishable from the real person, while on the other hand all you have is a bald assertion that Glenn is the banker. The point is, the burden of proof is squarely on you to prove your position, which you cannot do unless you have some information that you're choosing for some reason to hold back.--PaulTaylor 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how it's not just "one theory", but the ONLY theory given in the article. What other theory is there? If there are other theories, then surely you would agree they should be in the article as well? Even though they would be as ridiculous as the theory that the host is an animatronic approximation of Noel Edmonds voiced by an actor. -88.110.27.56 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Banker's identity

message: the news has broken on buzzerblog.
the 15k box will be removed and replaced with the 500k. Andrewb1 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't yell...and proof, please. Cipher (Yell) 21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added details to the 'Special Changes' section. Should the Christmas gameboard be added to 'UK Box Values', or would it take up too much space? It's basically the same as the normal gameboard, but the £15k's removed and the £500k's added, so the 'reds' go £1,000, £3,000, £5,000, £10,000, £20,000, £35,000, £50,000, £75,000, £100,000, £250,000, £500,000. BillyH 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly I don't think it's necessary to reproduce the entire Christmas gameboard, but I suppose it might be nice to have a note in that section mantioning that a different board was used a couple of times. I'll add that now. (By the way, is there a source on them using a different method of selecting the contestants for these shows? And any idea what the method will be? I ask mostly for my own idle curiosity)--PaulTaylor 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not really a good source, but it's from someone who saw the recording of the shows who posted in the Digital Spy forum. He just said "the player is picked in a different but fair way" . BillyH 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense anyway. Normally the day you play is irrelevant to how well you'll do, since the game is the same every day, so it doesn't matter that it's just the producers choosing the contestant each day. Since these games are very different, they'd be wide open to accusations of favouritism if they didn't do it in some more transparent way (drawing lots on-camera or whatever).--PaulTaylor 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOND Christmas Giveaway 

message: I know the article's big as it is, but should we mention the merchandise? There's been two books, a board game, an electronic game, an electronic handheld game, and a DVD game already, and it's only been on for a year. BillyH 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think it's important to mention the merchandise. I have no idea what there is though, only some DVD game thing I saw an advert for earlier today. If anyone else knows more about this merchandise then it'd be really helpful if they wrote, what, a couple of paragraphs about it? Cipher (Yell) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a section. BillyH 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandise 

message: Make sure that's mentioned - Winner Is Real Deal
:It's been mentioned. By you, actually. And make sure to mark your posts with ~~~~ in future. Cipher (Yell) 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been mentioned in the article before. And I got rid of it before, because there's no need to spoil the results of fututre shows for people. I think, when someone reads this article, it's generally fair to assume that they don't expect to have the programme ruined for them. So I don't see the point in putting it in just to demonstrate how clever we are for knowing it. I shall now get rid of it again.--PaulTaylor 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know somebody's just won it, don't you? 

message: Why is the Friday 24 November show a repeat of Kirsty's game? Cipher (Yell) 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found out why - contestant Amanda's stepson died recently and the funeral is either today or Monday. Depending on which, there may be a few repeats until they show her game. Cipher (Yell) 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friday, 24/11 - Repeat? 

message: What's going on with that table at the foot of the page? It's all narrow and says "£250,000" at the top for no reason. Sadly I'm not clever enough to be able to fix it.--PaulTaylor 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Issue 

message: Does anyone know where I would be able to watch this episode (the big one)? We have "Teleport Replay" on Telewest but they've annoyingly put an old episode from 2005 under the 7th. I also saw a clip on YouTube but its only the last reveal (and very poor quality). Anyone know when it will be repeated or where I can get a copy of it? 82.32.52.82 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jan 7th game... 

message: At the moment, the description of the format of the game in this article raises a few issues. Prior to a recent edit, there was no descrition in the article of the actual mechanics of the game - presumably under the reasoning that that information is provided in the main Deal or No Deal article. But this is never explicitly stated in this article, which many people will come to not having seen the umbrella page. Just now, someone's added in a bit of description of the process of the Banker's offers and of the actual deal-or-no-dealing, but now we just have a pretty pointless halfway-house situation. I propose we either need to: (a) remove the new paragraph, and add an explanation at the start of the Format section saying that the mechanic of the game is covered in the main article and that this section deals with the specific parameters of the UK version; or (b) flesh out the Format section to a full description of how the game works (making this article easier to read, but creating essentially duplicate information). Any thoughts on which is better?--PaulTaylor 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of game format 

message: It should happen. Discuss.
* I think the idea of having a new article for the banker is a great idea it SHOULD happen, although i think keeping part of the new article in the current DOND UK article should also happen. --Thenthornthing 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a character in a TV show, so why shouldn't he have his own page? - Mikay 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly because what is written about him here is so full of speculation and original analysis with no referencing that it barely merits inclusion in the main article! --John24601 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The main problem I have with it is that it's written in an "in-universe" style. The things written here are presented as facts, as thought everything we have been told about the banker is the absolute truth. It is not made clear in the article that this is primarily a fictional character. It is also (like the rest of the article) poorly referenced, and because of this there is no verifiability and no way to establish notability. I don't think that creation of a seperate article is the way to go, at least not until we've done some significant cleanup here which proves that it's worthy of its' own article. --John24601 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Banker/New Page Discussion 

message: It says in the article January 7.  It also says in the article January 8... surely they can't both be right.  Does anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.31.195 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What date was the £250,000 won? 

message: This article needs some significant cleanup in order to meet wikipedia standards. I've placed some tags at the top, but I wanted to highlight some things here. Firstly, most of the article is unreferenced: the fact that someone has seen it on TV does not make it properly referenced: we need citations to sources other than the show. This also helps to meet notability guidlines. At the moment the article (sic) reads like a fan site: a collection of thoughts, recollections etc., rather than an encyclopaedic article. There is also significant blurring of fiction and reality. There is also extensive original research/analysis, in the form of peoples' opinions on the notable games etc. We need to lose maybe 80% of the article and do a major re-write on what is left: if that doesn't happen, then the best option may be to delete the article and rebuild it. --John24601 16:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of the things need citing not because their truth is likely to be questioned, but because without some reference to establish their notability, they simply don't demand inclusion - the green boxes being a prime example. --John24601 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The green boxes were obviously not notable; they're only mentioned as an example (hence the use of the phrase "for example"). Anyway, I've got rid of the citation tags that ask for citations simply for things that happened on the show, because there's never going to be a citation for them as they're obviously unciteable. We can either delete them or leave them uncited, but a rash of tags whose only purpose is to mark the facts they refer to for deletion is a pointless compromise that just makes the page barely readable. I'd point out, by the way, that no other TV show's article here cites references for things that happened on the show either, so a consistent application of that policy would clutter up an awful lot of pages.--PaulTaylor 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By way of an attempt to expedite this, a Wikia wiki has been created for the non-notable stuff  - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Deal_or_No_Deal_%28UK%29 . Feel free to create pages and categorise them as mentioned. In doing this, I've moved the stats pages around a bit, so I'm changing their links in the main article.144.32.130.105 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, that was me - I forgot to sign in Elcondor 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I deleted the biggest prize on offer for daytime in the UK part as it's wrong.  The People Versus offered an unlimited amount of money as its prize. 
 http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php/The_People_Versus
Dougal18 10:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, yes, but to be fair, you'd have had to play through the whole game eighty-four times to win more than a quarter-million, and the show didn't last long enough for that to be done.--PaulTaylor 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  That sounds to me like original research - taking two facts and putting them together to make a 3rd fact. It's precisely the kind of thing this article is riddled with. --John24601 16:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: of course it should be a new page it's a character of tv program just like characters of friends are put on so it should be an article.  User: Czesc26
p.s I like Andrew (the guy with the eye problem)
I agree but the whole thing has now been deleted. Give the Banker his own section elsewhere if it is felt it clutters this page; but don't lose all the good stuff entirely!80.229.246.6 13:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Banker should be a new page!!! 

message: I've pretty vastly shortened the last few sections of the article which were largely full of obscure DOND ephemera. This includes the Banker section, which I therefore removed the split tag from. Of course, if anyone still wants a new article, the old stuff still exists in the History section, but I think the main artice reads much better like this. In the main, I think the philosophy with this article should be that a) nothing that was only mentioned once (traits of the Banker or whatever) is worth including, and b) we must try to aviod the article being written in the style that the show is in (e.g., referring to episodes as "Bob's Game" or whatever). Of course, the article's still not perfect, but I feel it's a step in the right direction. Thanks. (Oh, and apologies for any typos which I've let slide in.)--PaulTaylor 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for telling me that this is 'discussed' on the talk page and deleting my edit to reinstate very interesting Banker section. This section is full of clues built up over months unlike your edit that only includes one bit of information from two days ago. 
You seem to have unilaterally decided to delete Banker content that people here were sufficiently interested in that they felt it deserved it's own page. The only discussion here relates to that. Your contribution is a statement of fact not held by everyone by any means.80.229.246.6 13:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was me that told you to discuss it. I guess you're right though. The only reason I restored it back to the "new banker" part.. was because of the discussion in the "New Banker Page" .. I still stand by splitting off the old information into a new page. -Mikay 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly the previous version of the Banker section was 'very detailed' and the 'clues' may or may not have built up a 'genuinely interesting picture'. But this is a Wikipedia article primarily, not just a collection of assertions about the Banker. Even if the stuff contained in the old section were relevant, the style it was written in was appaling. Take the first clause of the first sentence: "Born on May 12 of an unknown year,...". According to whom? Later (after this sentence fragment is repeated verbatim) it is stated that the year in question is "thought to be 1952". Says who? This would have to be rephrased to something like "Although the Banker's date of birth has never been explicitly stated, in an episode broadcast on May 12 he claimed it to be his birthday. In another instance, he claimed to have almost been selected to represent Britain at swimming in the Munich Olympics, suggesting 1952 as the most likely year of his birth (though it is unknown whether the Banker in fact possesses a consistent back-story". And that's just the first eight words! Other highlights include: "The Banker is currently working as a banker for Deal or No Deal." (really?!); "The Banker's description can be divided into several groups. Family background, current affairs, personality, appearance, voice and miscellaneous." (since the article goes on to do precisely this, I think it goes without saying). If you want the old section back, then of course there's nothing stopping you putting it back, but I'd strongly suggest it needs a pretty hefty redrafting, and then belongs on its own page if anywhere at all.--PaulTaylor 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  The banker section was looking to getting its own article because people like the banker and all the "interesting clues" given about him. That does not make him worthy of his own article, and does not make the current (now removed) text worthy of discussion here. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't (and shouldn't) work on who has the majority, it is who carries the force of the argument, and I'm yet to see any good argument from the "keep" or "split to new article" side other than "it's interesting", which, as I've explained, does not make it encyclopaedic. --John24601 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that while the section may or may not in theory deserve to have its own article, the section as it was written didn't even deserve to exist in this article. I wonder how many of the people complaining here had actually read the section through recently? I mentioned the problems in the opening part before. In leter parts, it said things like, "[the Banker] often mentions that 'the position of Mrs. Banker number seven is currently vacant!'", which I'm sure he must have said exactly once. The "Banker's Current Affairs" part is stuff that's already been explained followed by blind (and barely grammatical) assertions with entirely no context. The "Banker's Appearance" part is generally fine, and indeed is the only part I kept some of. The "Banker's Voice" part veers off-topic halway through and starts explaining how he sometimes leaves contestants poems and bubble bath. The "Banker's Personality" bit is quite baddly-written and mostly repeated information. "Other Banker Traits" is essentially "Things The Banker Has Done", which do not generally qualify as 'traits', then stops halfway through to go back to speculating on who the Banker actually is for a paragraph. It was a complete cluttered mess, so I got rid of it. On a separate point, I don't think there's any reason to list all this 'personal information' about the Banker anyway, since we have no way of knowing that the character has even been given a consistent backstory. Surely far more likely is that the Banker just makes stuff up as he sees fit, in which case it shouldn't be being recorded in an encyclopedia anyway; all you need is a sentence explaining that the Banker sometimes reveals in his calls details of his personal life, though it is unclear to what extent this is a true backstory for the character, or whether it is simply invented on the spot; and maybe give a couple of examples. Sorry to go on a bit, but I wanted to explain my reasons fully, since I seem to have angered some people...--PaulTaylor 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest then, that you (or someone else reading this) makes a new page for The Banker. I think if it's separate from the main artice, it doesn't matter so much if it's not perhaps as 'properly' written as the main article, since it's a step removed, so it's not 'dragging down' the main article, as it were. In fact, I might do it myself right now. Everybody can be happy! Hurrah!--PaulTaylor 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've put the old stuff into a new article at The Banker (Deal or No Deal UK). It's got a cleanup tag for the reasons I've so thoroughly gone into here, and it could probably use a few sources adding to it if anyone has any in case someone starts gunning for its deletion, but it's there and hopefully it's a lovely compromise, leaving this article pretty tightly-written but still keeping all the information available.--PaulTaylor 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening 

message: Is there some way I'm not seeing of stopping this bit being edited back in every few days?--PaulTaylor 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Jones's Game was a Powerful one...

message: This is clearly a sad programme made for sad people. Sad but funny. Pathetic. That's why I watched it and why I´m writing this post. Because it is so memorably sad, funny and pathetic. And Noel Edmunds, what can you say about him? Nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.35.213 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dumbing down