Talk:Only Connect

(Untitled)

The Example Puzzle for Round 3 is not representative, since the clues start out in random order on a 4 x 4 grid, and the example here shows them already sorted into categories. Needs work, I feel. Lee M (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with 2010 series

Sounds a good idea, I don't think the two series this year are any more or less notable than the total series at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.218.137 (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Series 8

Series 8 started a few weeks ago.

2.28.108.6 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Names of teams

The section entitled "Format" could be improved if, when talking about teams, it noted how the teams have names, and gave some examples of names of teams. Vorbee (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Days of the week

I removed this section from the intro:

"From 6 January 2017 the show moved from Mondays to Fridays, leaving the fellow BBC Two quiz show University Challenge as the only quiz show that occupies the Monday 20:00 slot. On July 16, 2017, Only Connect host Victoria Coren Mitchell confirmed on her Twitter account that the series had been renewed for a thirteenth series which began airing on July 28, 2017 at the 8.30pm time slot on BBC Two. It was also announced that the show would move back to Monday in January 2018.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Coren M.|first1=Victoria|title=Yes, the THIRTEENTH series of Only Connect starts on Friday July 28th, 8.30pm on BBC2. Lovely to see such a drumroll around the new series|url=https://twitter.com/VictoriaCoren/status/886510265843503104|website=Twitter|accessdate=23 July 2017}}</ref>"

It feels unnecessary. It was on Mondays, now it's on Fridays, it'll be on Mondays again. I'll have no real objections if someone feels it should go back in, but please not in the intro. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty

I believe this show is famous for being one of the most notoriously difficult and complex game shows on TV. Surely any article worth its salt would reference this?

Ratings section removed

I just removed the ratings section of the article as it is unencyclopaedic and fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. If anyone has any objections to this, please post them here providing the reason does not fall under WP:PPOV or WP:ATAEW. BangJan1999 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the content is encyclopedic - There's people out there that find ratings helpful and encyclopedic, As for NOTGUIDE which part of it does this fail as as far as I can see it doesn't fail any of them, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm with BangJan1999 on this one, I'm afraid. This text of the article is overshadowed by the long, dry list of episode dates and ratings that few if any will ever read. If people want ratings they can get them from the source. IMO the tables are an unduly prominent list of statistics that would be better replaced by a couple of prose sentences summarising the average ratings and any general trends or notable peaks and troughs. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dave.Dunford, I do agree the ratings do take up a hell of a lot of the article, What about if I were to condense it down to something like IZombie_(TV_series)#Ratings just without the chart, I do agree prose sentences would be better however being totally honest I wouldn't know where to begin and it's highly unlikely anyone's going to prose it for us, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The possibility of a chart had occurred to me, and would perhaps be preferable – more concise and also more useful. I'll have a tinker and maybe set up a sandbox page. Watch this space. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie, Well on the weekend I'll mess around with the tables and see what happens .... I have a feeling all is going to go very very wrong , Anyway thanks for helping :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've since reverted the above editor and have commented the content out - The content should remain incase others want to edit it, Annoyingly I didn't realise my birthday was THIS weekend coming so as such I'll do the ratings next weekend, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like the ratings could we at least have the "episode guide". Maybe on a new page, like University Challenge. NearCry (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There was once an episodes guide but it was deleted per a deletion discussion. BangJan1999 21:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Ratings section

There is no consensus to remove the "Ratings" section. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

The lack of consensus to remove the section means it should be retained per the policy. The section has been in the article for over five years since a September 2012 version of the article.

Editors noted that the ratings section is lengthy. One suggestion for improvement was to introduce a show/hide feature on the tables. Another suggestion was to change and trim the section. These suggestions did not achieve consensus owing to the lack of discussion but could be discussed further.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Ratings section be removed? There has already been a discussion about this on the talk page. BangJan1999 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: IMO, OC is NOT the kind of TV show that needs a ratings section. BangJan1999 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Walking Dead has ratings, IZombie has ratings, Orange Is The New Black has ratings (although prosed instead of list), EastEnders has ratings (prose and list) so as such I would consider these to be encyclopedic and valuable information,

I will also note that the last discussion was more or less closed as consensus to change and trim (which hasn't been done due to RL events so as a compromise I commented these out until I (or another editor) have more time to change these). –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sourced television show ratings are perfectly acceptable, though I do see some editor's concerns about the length. Perhaps a show/hide feature on tables would be appropriate. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support: the huge table as was previously presented is surely unencyclopaedic and of minimal interest to most readers. Much better presented either as a chart, or as a prose summary of the trends (noting the changes of channel and broadcast day). Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Dave.Dunford - the huge table as was previously presented is surely unencyclopaedic and of minimal interest to most readers - Which is why I hidden it and planned at some point to update it inline with those listed above, To convert it is going to take a lot of time and quite honestly at this present time it's time I do not have however that's not a valid reason to keep removing it - We have SOFIXIT and BEBOLD for this precise reason. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Lots of other TV shows have ratings sections, why should this be any different? BeanoMaster (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep unencyclopaedic content. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Because I don't think OC is that kind show is a show that benefits from a long list of ratings that take up half of the article. Which is why similar quiz shows such as Mastermind and University Challenge don't have ratings. BangJan1999 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason however noting ratings are on different articles further proves our point that ratings are on different articles but they're just a lot smaller, SOFIXIT and BEBOLD applies. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Is there a policy or guideline about TV ratings in an articles? It could be helpful to determine whether the ratings section is suitable for this article. BangJan1999 23:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ratings

The ratings are currently commented out of the article, which is functionally no different from them being removed – readers can't see them and editors can. However, the consensus from a year ago is that they should be included in the article, albeit possibly in a summarised fashion. Is anyone planning to add them back in a shortened form? Otherwise, I'll just add them back as they were (which is closer to what consensus above decided). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done - I'll work on it over the weekend or so and it should look something like Waterloo_Road_(TV_series)#Transmissions_and_ratings, For now I've restored. –Davey2010^Talk 12:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Good compromise – it appears you could simply add a new column to the table in the "Series" section. But if it doesn't happen, the current state of the article really isn't useful, whatever Bilorv says above – these long and detailed lists are verging on cruft (and possibly a copyvio of BARB data, though I'm no expert and there may be a fair use defence). Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dave.Dunford, I do agree it does need to be condensed however because of RL stuff I've just not had the time to do this (I hoped someone above would've taken on the job!), The original plan I believe was to do it like the iZombie (TV series) ratings however I stumbled on the WR article and thought "hey if it works here it can work there" and it's less complicated than the IZ ne so yeah I'll get it done over the weekend scouts honour and all that :). Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings

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)

Waterloo Road Table

Series Episodes Premiere Finale Average viewers (millions) 1 8 9 March 2006 27 April 2006 4.6 2 12 18 January 2007 26 April 2007 4.3 3 20 11 October 2007 13 March 2008 5.0 4 20 7 January 2009 20 May 2009 4.7 5 20 28 October 2009 15 July 2010 4.8 6 20 1 September 2010 6 April 2011 4.9 WRR 6 2 March 2011 6 April 2011 N/A 7 30 4 May 2011 25 April 2012 5.1 8 30 23 August 2012 4 July 2013 4.4 9 20 5 September 2013 12 March 2014 4.1 10 20 15 October 2014 9 March 2015 3.6

Only Connect Ratings

Series Series Episodes Start date End date Tournament Format Average viewers (millions) 1 15 15 September 2008 22 December 2008 16-team single-elimination tournament 2 8 13 July 2009 31 August 2009 8-team single-elimination with third-place match 3 15 4 January 2010 12 April 2010 16-team single elimination 4 16 6 September 2010 27 December 2010 16-team single-elimination with third-place match 5 16 15 August 2011 5 December 2011 16-team single-elimination with third-place match 6 16 27 August 2012 17 December 2012 16-team single-elimination with third-place match 7 13 13 May 2013 5 August 2013 8-team modified double-elimination tournament 8 13 23 September 2013 23 December 2013 8-team modified double-elimination 9 13 14 April 2014 7 July 2014 8-team modified double-elimination 10 27 1 September 2014 30 March 2015 16-team modified double-elimination 2.5 11 27 13 July 2015 18 January 2016 16-team modified double-elimination 12 37 11 July 2016 7 April 2017 24-team knockout based on University Challenge 2.57 13 37 28 July 2017 2018 24-team knockout based on University Challenge Ratings Ratings sourced from BARB. Series 1 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 15 September 2008 — — 2 22 September 2008 256,000 6 3 29 September 2008 285,000 7 4 6 October 2008 217,000 10 5 13 October 2008 — — 6 20 October 2008 — — 7 27 October 2008 — — 8 3 November 2008 — — 9 10 November 2008 — — 10 17 November 2008 — — 11 24 November 2008 — — 12 1 December 2008 258,000 6 13 8 December 2008 191,000 10 14 15 December 2008 — — 15 22 December 2008 — — Series 2 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 13 July 2009 272,000 5 2 20 July 2009 230,000 4 3 27 July 2009 — — 4 3 August 2009 202,000 7 5 10 August 2009 262,000 4 6 17 August 2009 — — 7 24 August 2009 261,000 4 8 31 August 2009 267,000 10 Series 3 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 4 January 2010 369,000 9 2 11 January 2010 388,000 4 3 18 January 2010 422,000 3 4 25 January 2010 — — 5 1 February 2010 371,000 4 6 8 February 2010 338,000 6 7 15 February 2010 277,000 9 8 22 February 2010 336,000 8 9 1 March 2010 432,000 3 10 8 March 2010 308,000 6 11 15 March 2010 464,000 1 12 22 March 2010 506,000 2 13 29 March 2010 507,000 4 14 5 April 2010 442,000 4 15 12 April 2010 376,000 4 Series 4 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 6 September 2010 507,000 1 2 13 September 2010 428,000 6 3 20 September 2010 450,000 4 4 27 September 2010 572,000 1 5 4 October 2010 480,000 1 6 11 October 2010 524,000 2 7 18 October 2010 609,000 2 8 25 October 2010 656,000 2 9 1 November 2010 684,000 1 10 8 November 2010 633,000 1 11 22 November 2010 586,000 1 12 29 November 2010 640,000 1 13 6 December 2010 586,000 1 14 13 December 2010 628,000 2 15 20 December 2010 664,000 1 16 27 December 2010 452,000 7 Series 5 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 15 August 2011 650,000 1 2 22 August 2011 623,000 2 3 29 August 2011 635,000 2 4 5 September 2011 707,000 2 5 12 September 2011 635,000 1 6 19 September 2011 646,000 1 7 26 September 2011 583,000 1 8 3 October 2011 759,000 1 9 10 October 2011 673,000 1 10 17 October 2011 807,000 2 11 24 October 2011 737,000 2 12 31 October 2011 697,000 1 13 7 November 2011 745,000 1 14 21 November 2011 712,000 3 15 28 November 2011 853,000 3 16 5 December 2011 762,000 3 Series 6 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 27 August 2012 967,000 1 2 3 September 2012 854,000 1 3 10 September 2012 942,000 1 4 17 September 2012 802,000 2 5 24 September 2012 894,000 1 6 1 October 2012 888,000 1 7 8 October 2012 988,000 1 8 15 October 2012 936,000 1 9 22 October 2012 1,018,000 1 10 29 October 2012 1,006,000 1 11 5 November 2012 1,004,000 1 12 19 November 2012 913,000 3 13 26 November 2012 1,160,000 1 14 3 December 2012 918,000 3 15 10 December 2012 886,000 3 16 17 December 2012 1,078,000 1 Series 7 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 13 May 2013 787,000 3 2 20 May 2013 728,000 1 3 27 May 2013 894,000 1 4 3 June 2013 720,000 1 5 10 June 2013 669,000 2 6 17 June 2013 804,000 1 7 24 June 2013 850,000 1 8 1 July 2013 775,000 1 9 8 July 2013 706,000 2 10 15 July 2013 963,000 1 11 22 July 2013 991,000 2 12 29 July 2013 1,182,000 1 13 5 August 2013 1,080,000 1 Series 8 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 23 September 2013 786,000 3 2 30 September 2013 958,000 1 3 7 October 2013 1,031,000 1 4 14 October 2013 907,000 2 5 21 October 2013 859,000 2 6 28 October 2013 898,000 2 7 4 November 2013 920,000 2 8 18 November 2013 888,000 1 9 25 November 2013 947,000 1 10 2 December 2013 913,000 1 11 9 December 2013 940,000 1 12 16 December 2013 1,000,000 1 13 23 December 2013 945,000 2 Series 9 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Four Weekly Ranking 1 14 April 2014 822,000 1 2 21 April 2014 796,000 1 3 28 April 2014 895,000 2 4 5 May 2014 842,000 2 5 12 May 2014 864,000 2 6 19 May 2014 652,000 4 7 26 May 2014 773,000 3 8 2 June 2014 775,000 3 9 9 June 2014 720,000 2 10 16 June 2014 597,000 2 11 23 June 2014 764,000 2 12 30 June 2014 631,000 4 13 7 July 2014 862,000 2 Series 10 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Two Weekly Ranking 1 1 September 2014 2,234,000 4 2 8 September 2014 2,057,000 6 3 15 September 2014 2,030,000 6 4 22 September 2014 2,179,000 3 5 29 September 2014 2,188,000 7 6 6 October 2014 2,029,000 8 7 13 October 2014 2,250,000 5 8 20 October 2014 2,266,000 4 9 27 October 2014 2,131,000 7 10 3 November 2014 2,280,000 8 11 17 November 2014 2,220,000 11 12 24 November 2014 2,511,000 8 13 1 December 2014 2,201,000 8 14 8 December 2014 2,170,000 12 15 15 December 2014 2,559,000 7 16 5 January 2015 2,269,000 7 17 12 January 2015 2,641,000 2 18 19 January 2015 2,449,000 7 19 26 January 2015 2,598,000 5 20 2 February 2015 2,473,000 7 21 9 February 2015 2,394,000 6 22 16 February 2015 2,296,000 7 23 23 February 2015 2,794,000 6 24 2 March 2015 2,853,000 5 25 16 March 2015 2,365,000 5 26 23 March 2015 2,653,000 5 27 30 March 2015 2,552,000 4 Series 11 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Two Weekly Ranking 1 13 July 2015 Not Available – 2 20 July 2015 2,292,000 6 3 27 July 2015 2,441,000 4 4 3 August 2015 2,373,000 5 5 10 August 2015 2,234,000 5 6 17 August 2015 2,457,000 5 7 24 August 2015 2,393,000 6 8 31 August 2015 2,446,000 5 9 7 September 2015 2,417,000 4 10 14 September 2015 2,395,000 3 11 21 September 2015 2,412,000 3 12 28 September 2015 2,250,000 4 13 5 October 2015 2,387,000 5 14 12 October 2015 2,478,000 3 15 19 October 2015 2,379,000 4 16 26 October 2015 2,514,000 3 17 2 November 2015 1,850,000 16 18 16 November 2015 1,990,000 13 19 23 November 2015 2,189,000 9 20 30 November 2015 2,091,000 10 21 7 December 2015 1,970,000 14 22 14 December 2015 2,040,000 14 23 21 December 2015 2,342,000 10 24 28 December 2015 2,275,000 10 25 4 January 2016 2,466,000 5 26 11 January 2016 2,705,000 3 27 18 January 2016 2,898,000 2 Series 12 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Two Weekly Ranking 1 11 July 2016 2,109,000 3 2 18 July 2016 2,214,000 4 3 25 July 2016 2,248,000 7 4 1 August 2016 2,293,000 5 5 8 August 2016 1,850,000 21 6 15 August 2016 1,970,000 14 7 22 August 2016 2,536,000 6 8 29 August 2016 2,604,000 7 9 5 September 2016 2,487,000 5 10 12 September 2016 2,513,000 3 11 19 September 2016 2,631,000 2 12 26 September 2016 2,378,000 5 13 3 October 2016 2,399,000 5 14 10 October 2016 2,688,000 6 15 17 October 2016 2,795,000 4 16 31 October 2016 2,807,000 3 17 7 November 2016 2,691,000 6 18 14 November 2016 2,662,000 6 19 21 November 2016 2,600,000 5 20 28 November 2016 2,661,000 5 21 5 December 2016 2,581,000 5 22 12 December 2016 2,550,000 5 23 19 December 2016 2,170,000 11 24 6 January 2017 2,000,000 13 25 13 January 2017 2,060,000 11 26 20 January 2017 1,920,000 12 27 27 January 2017 1,695,000 10 28 3 February 2017 1,821,000 10 29 10 February 2017 1,720,000 9 30 17 February 2017 1,904,000 9 31 24 February 2017 1,680,000 7 32 3 March 2017 1,831,000 9 33 10 March 2017 1,782,000 8 34 17 March 2017 1,770,000 13 35 24 March 2017 1,630,000 12 36 31 March 2017 1,967,000 8 37 7 April 2017 1,859,000 8 Series 13 Episode No. Airdate Viewers BBC Two Weekly Ranking 1 28 July 2017 1,743,000 8 2 4 August 2017 1,470,000 12 3 11 August 2017 1,793,000 8 4 18 August 2017 1,816,000 6 5 25 August 2017 1,720,000 7 6 1 September 2017 1,654,000 8 7 8 September 2017 1,550,000 13 8 15 September 2017 1,756,000 5 9 22 September 2017 1,490,000 11 10 29 September 2017 1,640,000 11 11 6 October 2017 1,772,000 8 12 13 October 2017 1,845,000 9 13 20 October 2017 1,880,000 9 14 27 October 2017 1,963,000 9 15 10 November 2017 1,730,000 15 16 17 November 2017 1,670,000 22 17 8 December 2017 1,650,000 17 18 15 December 2017 1,860,000 16 19 22 December 2017 1,880,000 14 20 1 January 2018 2,060,000 11 21 8 January 2018 2,240,000 8 22 15 January 2018 2,240,000 8 23 22 January 2018 24 29 January 2018 25 5 February 2018 26 12 February 2018 Specials Date Title Viewers BBC Four/Two Weekly Ranking 21 December 2009 Series 1 vs Series 2 Winners Special — — 15 November 2010 Children in Need Special 599,000 1 10 January 2011 Series 3 vs Series 4 Winners Special 558,000 1 17 January 2011 University Challenge Special 615,000 3 14 March 2011 Comic Relief Special 468,000 4 14 November 2011 Children in Need Special 794,000 3 12 December 2011 Wall Night Special (Heats) 673,000 3 12 December 2011 Wall Night Special (Semi-Finals & Final) 523,000 5 2 January 2012 Series 1 vs Series 4 Winners Special 761,000 6 9 January 2012 Only Connect vs Mastermind Special 650,000 4 31 January 2012 Wall Night Special 2 (Heats) 634,000 5 31 January 2012 Wall Night Special 2 (Semi-Finals & Finals) — — 19 March 2012 Sport Relief Special 706,000 2 12 November 2012 Children in Need Special 1,078,000 3 7 January 2013 Series 5 vs Series 6 Winners Special 982,000 1 14 January 2013 Eggheads vs Davids 1,173,000 1 11 March 2013 Comic Relief Special 999,000 1 11 November 2013 Children in Need Special 967,000 2 17 March 2014 Sport Relief Special 750,000 2 10 November 2014 Children in Need Special 2,280,000 10 9 March 2015 Comic Relief Special 2,422,000 7 9 November 2015 Children in Need Special 2,030,000 12 14 March 2016 Sport Relief Special 2,315,000 4 References

Episode results/ratings and WP guidelines

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)

More complete credits

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)

List of winners

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)