Talk:Quizmania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Did a bit of tidying up... 2 Re: Criticisms 3 A vote on the content 4 Calm down 5 Clean me up buttercup 6 Bringing back legitimate criticisms 6.1 Catchphrases 7 Added 8 Biggest sum won? 9 Criticism - Better placed in Quiz Channel article? 10 Page moves

[edit] Did a bit of tidying up...

Hope you don't mind, I just did a little bit of updating to avoid confusion since the move to ITV2 (and ITV Play) - for example the jackpot being discontinued and the vague statement about the money ITV made in the "first two weeks of transmission". =)

[edit] Re: Criticisms

9cd - Can you show me a single factual innacuracy in anything I have written ab out this subject? If you cannot do this, you can have no claim to prevent me from putting up these perfectly legitimate criticisms of Quizmania onto the article. Aaarrrggh 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk pages. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should your version of the article stand before a vote? My version is totally, 100% factually accurate. You've not demonstrated a single 'lie' or discrepancy, so I do not see why you feel so strongly about it. It almost feels like I'm arguing with an employee of the company that makes the program sometimes. If you hadn't edited so many other pages on Wikipedia, I'd be pretty certain that that was the case. Why do you feel so strongly about this article, and why are you removing perfectly legitimate criticism? Aaarrrggh 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These criticisms are not unfounded. I criticised the open ended nature of the questions (there is no right or wrong answer, and this kind of system is very clearly open to abuse), and the bonus round, which I also suggested is too open and open to abuse. Unless you can provide some kind of evidence that demonstrates the honesty of this program, I cannot see why you have no problem with this perfectly legitimate criticism which is backed up by facts and evidence. Aaarrrggh 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I don't know how this voting system works, or where to find it. Can you provide a link please? Aaarrrggh 13:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to be so harsh on the Final Episode area with "axed?" This series of the show is coming to an end. We don't have to act like it's being killed do we? Illuming 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A vote on the content

I am going to put this to a vote. Look through the history; should we allow these critisisms into the article? The information should *not* be replaced until a consensus has been met. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• YES These criticisms are legitimate and are backed up by facts and evidence. There are no false claims made within them, and I see no reason to remove them from the article. Aaarrrggh 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Don't vote on everything - wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting is not the way forward. Try mediation or just take a rest for a while and come back, re-read the problem and try and discuss it without revert warring or voting. -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

I have warned the 2 editors involved in this dispute regarding criticism. Please calm down and discuss this.

Regarding the issue at hand. The onus is on the poster of information to provide sources for any information. Stating that it is fact is not enough. Every statement has to have been made by an external source and be referenced to. Please try to provide a source for all criticisms of the show.-Localzuk ^(talk) 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk - Much of my criticism stems from the actual format of the show itself. I don't know if you are familiar with the program, but it is a late night/early morning show in England where people are encouraged to call up a premium rate number under the pretext of being able to win large sums of money. The bulk of the criticism I put forward related to the actual questions and style that the show uses. For example, instead of asking a question with a definitive answer, such as "Who was number 1 in the charts on such and such a date?", the questions are typically things like: "Name 10 jobs a woman might do?" (This, incidently, was actually a question on a recent airing of the show). People then phone in and take guesses. There is no information as to where these answers have come from or anything like that. It's simple guess work - and it leaves the system open to abuse. I consider this to be evidence backed up by the show itself, and this is all I was ever claiming. Aaarrrggh 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaarrrgghh, please take note I have removed some information. This is under the No original reasearch, verifiability and Cite sources policies. Even if you think it is a criticism, you *must* provide independent sources to back this up - else it is POV made to look like fact and also is original research. -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have found a decent citation for this purpose. Please look here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1652203,00.html

Quotes from this article: "The Guardian has learned that the genre is now the focus of two investigations into their methods, by Ofcom, the industry watchdog, and Icstis, the phone line regulator. The former is looking into the extent to which some blur the lines between editorial and advertising in pushing premium rate phone lines while the latter has received over 100 complaints and is considering a new licensing regime."

Also, this is relevant to my point about the 'open ended' nature of the questions: "In future the games will be required to have a single, clear winning answer that is logged and available for inspection by the regulator. It is also likely that quiz channels will have to make it clear that most callers will not make it on air and under consideration is a rule requiring them to inform viewers how much they have spent, in £20 increments."

Is this good enough information for you? Aaarrrggh 13:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The article you post discuss the genre and not this game and therefore it is not really relevent to this article alone. Maybe an article regarding 'criticisms of tv quiz shows' could be created and linked to from this article and others in the same genre. I do not think it is specific enough to include on this article. -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Having said that Localzuk, the style of question used in Quizmania is exactly the same as the style of question referred to in the above article. I am of the opinion that this makes it revelant. Aaarrrggh 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the article is about other shows and not this one. I think it would be better in an article on its own and then linking to it. Unless you find an article that backs up specific complaints about this topic then I do not feel it is appropriate on here. To give an analogy, it would be like putting general criticism of technology on every appliance related article on WP (ie. on every tv, radio, computer etc...) - this would be better served on its own.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean me up buttercup

Please clean up the article as i may have screwed it up.

I hope I've done a good job with the clean up. :) Mikay 12:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing back legitimate criticisms

Mikay - A lot of your edits seem very heavily towards promoting quizmania. We cannot promote products etc on Wikipedia.

Also, I have now re-added this perfectly legitimate criticism of Quizmania, noting the Guardian reference. A quote from that article:

"The regulatory investigations have been prompted by more than 100 complaints about 14 different phone operators in recent months, and new guidelines are being drafted. Some viewers have complained about the games themselves, while others claim they did not know they were being charged for failed attempts to get through to the studio.

In future the games will be required to have a single, clear winning answer that is logged and available for inspection by the regulator. It is also likely that quiz channels will have to make it clear that most callers will not make it on air and under consideration is a rule requiring them to inform viewers how much they have spent, in £20 increments."

I placed this criticism into the article at the point that is specifically talking about this exact type of game - where there is no right or wrong answer. The article is relevant, and so is the criticism. I can see no reason why it should be removed again. Aaarrrggh 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Whilst not named in the article, it does discuss the exact same type of show and as such belongs in this article. In the same way that criticisms common to all religions can sometimes be relevant in specific religious articles, criticisms of particular car manufacturers can sometimes be relevant in specific models pages etc. Super Ted 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, still relatively new and just learning. :) Mikay 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't get the complaints. The hosts clearly state that you may not get through from time to time. And the price of the call is right next to the number. All it is is people complaining about not winning anything, and I find that terribly stupid. You don't want to be charged, don't call, simple as that.

[edit] Catchphrases

There is no need to include each presenter's catchprases. Leave them for the individual presenters' pages.

[edit] Added

Added stuff about King Lizard, thought it and interesting peice of knowledge... Also "aka Greggles" as that is what he is more known as on the show. And Added about greggles singing the "Speed Round bit.

RuSTy 1989

[edit] Biggest sum won?

It says that the largest sum won is £28,000.. but this must have been beaten since March. Could somebody check up on this?

[edit] Criticism - Better placed in Quiz Channel article?

Reading through the criticism section of the article, I can see it applies to a number of quiz shows and channels, not just to Quizmania. Wouldn't it be better if the information here was added to the Quiz channel's criticism section with a {{main|Quiz channel#Criticism}} link within this article and a brief description that Quizmania, alongside other quiz shows/channels (delete as appliciable) has been investigated for the way they run, for example? --tgheretford (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

I disagree with the current page moves, and am surprised that there was no discussion about it first as far as I can tell. I think the pages should be moved back to where they originally were as Quizmania Australia is merely a copy of Quizmania UK, and it should not be given equal exposure in the form of a disambiguation page. Also, this article isn't just about Quizmania UK; it has information about Quizmania in countries other than Australia and the UK in it, so to put (UK) in the article name would suggest that this article is only about Quizmania UK, which is incorrect. Another thing I'd like to point out is that for articles about other game shows that have had variations produced and aired in different countries, any searches for those shows direct the user to an article about the original show, with other countries' shows in a list later in the article; not a disambiguation page. jd || talk || 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ive done a bit of work at the Australian article. I will start rewriting the article. -- Punk Boi 8 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)