This article was nominated for deletion on 8 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 20 June 2023, see discussion. keep, 4 September 2013, see discussion.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Television: British / Episode coverage / Game shows Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as High-importance). Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Kaye Adams originally linked to is an American country singer, and has no connection to the stalwart of daytime television. She doesn't have an article yet; thus I've broken the link until such time as somebody more knowledgable than I can write one with a suitable disambig. Kinitawowi 01:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

After watching the show being recorded i can confirm Ian won 8-6

@Cwmxii: I invite you to, at least in part, rethink your reversion of my edits to this article. With these edits I:

• Converted the footnotes to use the correct footnote template (rather than repurposed reference tagging), which allows references/tags to be included within them.
• Removed trivial information from the notes, such as the arbitrary counting of every 50 episodes of the show (which is not signalled onscreen on at least most of these occasions). A column counting up total episode numbers could be added as an alternative to this.
• Added citation needed tags to unsourced information, which is a fundamental Wikipedia content policy.

I fail to see how any of this can be considered controversial, let alone vandalism. U-Mos (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@U-Mos: I'll concede that every *50th* episode seems a little arbitrary (it seems like something that dates back to when the page was first started when there were fewer than 250 episodes, after that point it's a little odd to note every 50th ep), but I don't see why every 100th episode shouldn't be noted; the 100th episode is noted on the show itself and I believe the broadcast of the 500th episode was used in promotional material for that series. I've had a look at Help:Footnotes and I can't see anything indicating the current use of footnotes is "wrong". I don't think most of the information you removed qualifies as "trivial"; on 44.4 it seems perfectly reasonable to provide context for the Great Yarmouth waxworks, since that explains why it was featured as a news item on the show and why they'd play a tiebreak round concerning it. The footnote at 66.1 was only kept because an unregistered IP kept on adding it and I didn't really feel strongly enough about it to start an edit war over it, if there's a consensus I wouldn't have an objection to deleting that. Thank you for taking this to the talk page rather than just reverting it again. Cwmxii (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring some aspects is fine; that's how editing works. A blanket restore and bad faith accusations are not. You've just now encountered yourself how you cannot place a reference inside a reference tag, hence the footnote template. And regardless, they're aesthetically the same, so what's the justification for undoing that? Remember too that sources and the cutting down of trivia were the specific improvements discussed in last year's AfD discussion. U-Mos (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmxii: Would you like to continue with this discussion or shall I ask for a third opinion? U-Mos (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]