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

Records

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)

Contestants

This was posted on the article by 83.105.94.4. —Whouk (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we could start a list of every contestant, the date they appeared and the amount they won. If anyone has any of these dates or figures it would be great if we could make up the list. I could then update it daily after we've gathered the list of previous contestants. Thanks in advance if you can contribute in any way. Below is a prototype - feel free to ad to it:

Date	Player	Amount won
October 31	Lynn	£14,000
November 1	Mark	£9,900
November 2	Anita	£33,000
November 3	Rachel	£25,000

The link to Bother's Bar in the external links section has most of the info you're looking for. The info for the "missing" game on 15 November was Player: Madie, Highest offer: £28,000, Deal: 4,800, Box contained £5. --Bonalaw 12:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, the full breakdown was as follows: Box 1 50p, Box 15 10p, Box 11 £35000, Box 16 £50000, Box 18 1p, Offer £6900 NO DEAL. Box 10 £5000, Box 14 £100, Box 7 £250000, Offer £1600 NO DEAL. Box 19 £250, Box 12 £750, Box 3 £75000, Offer £4800 NO DEAL. Box 22 £500, Box 17 £3000, Box 4 £1, Offer £14800 NO DEAL. Box 13 £20000, Box 5 10p, Box 20 £10000, Offer £28000 NO DEAL. Box 9 £1000, Box 6 £50, Box 8 £100000. (Remaining: £5, £15000) Offer £4800 DEAL. Madie's box (2) was worth £5. --A-body-of-water 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Box details for each show can be found at http://www.screwthebanker.com/contestantlist.html

I don't think it's the greatest idea to have every contestant ever listed. It's inevitable that the show will go on for another year, and it's just been rumoured a further two years, and nobody will want to have a list of contestants that have appeared on the show.

I think it would be a more suitable idea to have either:

a) A page with the most memorable games. I.E. 1p wins, £250,000 wins, etc.

or b) A page with the contestants and the amounts won for winners of the last seven days. People may want to check on how their favourite contestant did if they missed the show.

I just think a page with every contestant listed would be tedious and wasteful of the wonderful cyberspace. After all, would you be bothered by a page containing the names of ALL the contestants who have appeared on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? Mikay 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but remember: Dond in inherently statistical. That's the fun of it. Also, Wikipedia has plenty of space! 88.107.130.50 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a mistake in the article. Terri's game on 9 May 2006 was her eleventh appearance, not her tenth. (I think the confusion is because Terri stated that she'd 'been there for ten games'.) I've now removed the incorrect reference to Terri's game.

Picture

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)

I agree it should be. Wezzo 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Someone keeps changing the picture of Noel Edmonds... it's clearly vandalism (changing the current promo pic to an amorphos pink blog) by the same ip address. I don't know who to report it to, or if it's even necessary to report it, so if someone could let me know what to do I'd appreciate it.--Aliaslola 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How do you go about getting it semi-protected?--Aliaslola 02:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Picture is currently being reported as a copyvio, because it 'isn't in a press kit'. Surely being used by Channel 4's Press Office counts as a promotional picture? Elcondor 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sequences

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)

There is mention of that, in the "Filming" scetion. --Bonalaw 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Astoundingly...

...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)

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)

Saturday Shows

It appears the Saturday shows are shown at different times. The first hour long episode was at 7:10pm (the time the article states), yet Marcus' show was at 7pm... is there a range when the shows are shown, it may be better to include a range on the article, instead of a precise time especially as it varies from week to week. --Mikay 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Saturday edition for March 25, 2006, will be 45 minutes long instead of the 60 minute version. So, it's not fixed at 60 minutes! Manm hk 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact I think the saturday shows haven't been 1 hour for a long time now. More of the saturday shows have been 45 minute time slots rather than 1 hour slots. Should this be noted down? --Equiton 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• where was the saturday show for the 22nd april? has it been rescheduled for sunday?

It was on, just at a much earlier time than usual. Can't remember the exact times now, but it certainly wasn't "Prime Time"

Banker offers

The article contains refernces to "what the banker did (or would) offer" in a particular situation. How is this worked out? I would expect it to be the mean of the remaining boxes (slightly modified if anyone is applying psychology to the offers). However wjilst this is correct for some situations, it is way off in others. Can anyone explian and expound? -- SGBailey 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the bankers offers are explained in more detail on the main Deal or No Deal article. —This unsigned comment was added by Mikay (talk • contribs) .

UK Box Values

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)

I've changed it to white and emboldened it. —Whouk (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in the Viewers' Competition section, it says the winning of the £30,000 was the first time an amount not available in the actual game has been won. Surely, somebody has won the £2,000 before now? Double Dash 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Just seen the repeat of Eileen's game. Why do the numbers in the boxes look...3D? There's a shadow, or so it seems, behind the values. Have they been changed? Double Dash 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it too, they added it sometime this week. It's just superficial though. Shen 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Again in Viewers' Competition, it says "Currently, the highest viewer-win is £30,000, so we have yet to see a 4, 6, 8 or 9 tag inside a box." What about a 7 tag? Unless you're including the actual game and £750/£75,000. Double Dash 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The number seven was in a blue box on the 26 December 2006 when £75,000 was won by a viewer. Hope that helps.

Catchphrases

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)

I'd agree with you Bonalaw, for instance "This is the best game we've ever had", I honestly can't remember Noel ever using this phrase, maybe "This could possibly be one of the highest offers" or "This is turning out to be a very different game". This list needs editing IMHO. Nessuno834 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted these out into groups, which should hopefully make this a bit easier. Moggybix 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

--Hi, is it just me or has anyone else noticed that Noel calls the £1,000, and on rare occasions the £3,000 and £5,000 "honourary blues"? Double Dash 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Way too many catchphrases IMO. Bswee 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does often call low reds "honourary blues".

SPOILERS

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)

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)

Somebody won the quarter-million, by the way. Some 24 year old woman, shown next year. You're welcome!

8pm Rule

What's the point of this "after 8pm" rule? Why would somebody go on a page about Deal Or No Deal if they wanted to avoid seeing what had just happened on it?

It was a point that I was thinking about myself, and it does create a lot of confusion. Better ask the people who are overly bothered about that one. — FireFox (U T C) 18:58, 23 May '06

On most pages where there is the possibility that something has been shown in another country before being shown in the UK then there is the possibility to put {spoilers} in. However, with this there isn't. Curiosity is something that we can all be guilty of and if somebody who wants to watch the programme at 7:10 inadvertently/absent mindedly comes onto this page then the game is spoilt. Better to leave the page until 8pm than spoil one person's viewing? (Pally01 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Erm... there is {{spoiler}} included on the page... — FireFox (U T C) 20:39, 23 May '06

Aaah....b******s. In that case I bow to the majority. Glad we had a discussion about it though. (Pally01 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

..."or swap offer was not broadcast"

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)

Too much unnecessary information

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)

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)

I agree, it is rather pointless knowledge. Double Dash 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonathon Ross

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)

It will be great if they did. By:User:Philip1992

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)

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)

'Worst opening round'

I'd argue about Buzz having the worst opening round in DOND history. He took out three of the power 5, while Irene on the 2nd January took out four - all except the £100,000, and £10,000. The offer was a surprisingly high £1,700.

Anyone agree? Thought I'd ask here first before I change it. BillyH 01:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It basically comes down to whether losing £100,000 and £15,000 (Buzz) is worse than losing £35,000 and £50,000 (Irene) as the other three they took out were the same.

I think keeping the £100,000 makes Irene's start "less bad". Buzz took out the top three values and lost a combined total of £450,000 from the board in the first round, and Irene took out only £420,000.--84.69.109.138 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't think of it that way. BillyH 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Worst most pointless game show on British television

This show is absolute rubbish. All it is about is picking numbers at random. The *only* element of skill or thought to it is in trying to gauge whether the banker is making you a good offer or not.

Absolute tosh. And Noel Edmonds should've been put to sleep years ago. Bring back 15 to 1 and Beat the nation !! Martyn Smith 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, but what does this have to do with the article? WhoIzzet 16:22, 11 June 2006

Deal or no deal is a successful television format, and as Noel has shown he is also a successful presenter. I don't think your comments will go down too well here as most people contributing are fans of the show and of Edmonds. 15 to 1 was not as popular as Deal or no deal, did you ever see two episodes of it air in a day? For that matter, did anybody actually watch it at all? Save your pointless comments for "Beat the nation", or "15 to 1". Thanks.

As it says on the ukgameshows.com external link, it's one of those shows that either you "get" or you don't. Personally I'd rather have 15 to 1 back, but Deal or No Deal... it's nowt special, but it's alright. --Bonalaw 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw it I didn't watch it from the start of the programme so I thought there was some element of skill involved, then after seeing a few times I realised that it was completely random. I stopped watching it after a few weeks, because I was bored by it. The "problem" with the show is nearly everything said in it is complete nonsense: "beating" the banker, "extraordinary" game, my "instinct" is to... etc. Also the game could be "played" in less than five minutes, but it's stretched out to 45-60 min. LDHan 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who criticise the lack of skill involved are missing the point, it's a show about the people, their nerve and timing, and the drama and tension the game creates. Players have to balance the luck and probabilities with their ambitions and beliefs.

The quiz format had become rather tired and the game show sector needed something fresh, which DoND has been, as witnessed by its worldwide success. If you prefer answering trivia questions, you can always switch over to Millionaire or Weakest Link (at least until they are axed for falling ratings that is). --81.77.78.216 12:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To Martyn Smith - so a game where a player can potentially win a life-changing sum of money is pointless? People's lives have been made better because of this game. Jennifer won £120,000; Gaz, £100,000; and many more people have won tremendous sums of money that have undoubtedly changed their lives. But, if you think that's a pointless game, I won't judge you. Plenty of other people can do that for me. Double Dash 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem in 'Filming'

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)

That's more like it. --Bonalaw 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

£20,000 winners

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)

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)

The Banker

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)

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)

Deal or No Deal: Series 3

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)

Joseph from Series 2

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)

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)

He's now returned (September 9). Double Dash 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Summer Break

Does anyone know the time period when DOND will be off the air this summer? This would be appropriate for the article.

Repeats

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)

Two Things

I think that Seasons and Episode History should be merged. But I wouldn't know where to put them, so I'll just suggest it. Also, do you think the Talk page should be pruned a little?

Second Run

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)

I don't understand what you mean? Mikay 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who 'they' are. It's either Wikipedia or Channel 4. Double Dash 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilgeroth

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)

WTF?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms

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)

URL

I'd put money on it right now that the URL is gonna be http://www.redboxclub.com/. Double Dash 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. It doesn't lead anywhere yet, but there seems to be the guts of a website being put there. No joy from a WHOIS search, though. --PaulTaylor 17:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Second word is 'box'. Question is, 'Club' or 'Company'? Or neither? Oh, I'm confused... Double Dash 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, check out the link above ;) — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:12, 30 August 2006}

Ooh, pretty website...haven't clicked that link today. Too...many...symbols... Double Dash 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Diamond - Incorrect fact?

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)

Edit: Ignore me - Brenda was the one I was thinking about, she still had £750 left.

I'm sure this will have been the case before, only not in active play. Double Dash 10:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Confusion

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)

Just a thought...

"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)

"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)

I agree with Doublr Dash here. Definitely on the dealt - Noel says dealt. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Length of the article

Eek - this article is extremely large, both in file size and length, the latter of which makes the article look bloated. Should certain sections be moved to sub-articles and, if so, which? (That question is why I'm not being bold and doing something myself. :-)) -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. User:Whoizzet Anon 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no need to change it at all. Double Dash 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps move over the Catchphrases and presenting style section to a separate article? -Mikay 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be moved to Wikiquote, and maybe also given a cleanup - for example, it states that Noel's spaz-like "Aaaaaaaaoooooouuuuu!" is a regular occurence, but I'm pretty sure he only said it once, and it's that clip that's become such a craze on Youtube (along with "Ha! Look at his funny face!"/"That's my brother. He's actually handicapped").

There's also quite a bit of duplication in the rest of the article, which could be fixed - Sara's game, for example, is described twice in two different sections. BillyH 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I might humbly suggest the info in "Special Changes" and "Show Trivia" be moved over to the respective Series 1 and 2 results pages - It would be a double benefit, as those articles are merely dry lists as they currently stand. Lambertman 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Show Trivia now has its own article...somewhere...can't remember where. Ah, yes, Deal or No Deal (UK) Show Records, section 6, General Trivia. It can stay there for a while. As for moving Special Changes, sure, let me just sort that out. Might stop the archives being deleted. Double Dash ^{(Talk to me!)} 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you were ahead of me on that one. Sorry. :) The info in "The Banker" beyond the first few paragraphs also looks like it could be easily split off onto the records pages. Lambertman 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Normally airs...

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)

Changed. Double Dash 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changing Series Archives

OK, Series 3 of Deal or No Deal starts on November 8, but we've the problem that we don't know how many episodes it contains. So, if we don't find out soon (like when it begins), I propose we change from Series archives to Season archives, as below:

• Deal or No Deal Season 1 (UK game show) - 31 October 2005 to 22 July 2006
• Deal or No Deal Season 2 (UK game show) - 28 August 2006 onwards

If most people are in agreement, I'll change this tomorrow afternoon. Double Dash ^{(Talk to me!)} 17:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should have something like what we have now "Offer one, Offer two", and have a Part telling us what happened (Box 14: £5 e.c.t) Duff12 17:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Offer 1, Offer 2" bit I was going to keep, sure. I'm really not sure about the other idea. There's a website already doing that and it just seems a little pointless to me. Double Dash ^{(Talk to me!)} 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – the current 'archives' are even balancing precariously on the edge of this policy themselves. — FireFox ^(talk) _{18:07, 14 September 2006}

UK Records/Facts Section

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)

1p club

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)

Good point. I've added an explanatory sentence after the term's first use in the article.--PaulTaylor 13:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Banker's identity

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Prove it, then. --88.109.125.191 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The most direct proof would be an admission from Glenn himself, and seeing as he continues to refer to The Banker in the third person in every interview he does (http://www.bothersbar.co.uk/weekendspecials/hugill.htm), we're not going to get it. Elcondor 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DOND Christmas Giveaway

the news has broken on buzzerblog. the 15k box will be removed and replaced with the 500k. Andrewb1 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't yell...and proof, please. Cipher ^(Yell) 21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

um, did you even look at the site!? Andrewb1 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the site doesn't provide a link to a proper source, but after a bit of rooting around I found it on The Guardian's site at http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,1946716,00.html - though I'm slightly annoyed that it's true since I think it's a rather bad decision.--PaulTaylor 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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" [1]. BillyH 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Merchandise

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)

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)

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

You know somebody's just won it, don't you?

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)

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)

Erm, there are plenty of wiki articles that give away spoilers, just use a spoiler warning before you write it. The girl who won is a student from Plymouth or something, its all over the web if you look. I think its perfectly valid to insert something about it. We're not doing it "just to demonstrate how clever we are". Its bloody big news in terms of the show so there should certainly be something about it. Just insert a spoiler warning and everyone can be happy. TSMonk 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that use spoiler warnings, but they tend to be ones relating the plots of films or TV shows that have 'already been broadcast'. This is something that hasn't yet "happened", so I don't see any reason to mention it yet. It's just going to spoil many people's enjoyment of the show - even in spoiler tags, people will either still read it by accident, or else be able to work out what's happened from the very fact there are spoiler tags in this article at all (I managed to guess just from another website providing a link marked "Spoiler" - it's hardly difficult). I just don't think it's appropriate.--PaulTaylor 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point, however I think that many other articles post forthcoming or speculated material, and although Wiki is not a crystal ball, this is a varified fact, and I feel it is too big a news to leave out of the article. Yes, it may spoil the show for some but wiki is about informing people about the major aspects of the show and this is one of the biggest things to have happened in it, and thus I feel should be mentioned. If we didnt post anything that didnt spoil something for someone then there would be very little on wiki, entertainment wise. I think it deserves a mention, its a varified fact and its not our place to decide what the public can and cannot read, but simply to present the facts in a neutral and subjective manner. Thats just my two cents though. TSMonk 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it's not "one of the biggest things to have happened" on the show, it's one of the biggest things to have not yet happened on the show. I don't see why the article should concern itself with episodes of a TV show that as yet, do not exist. Just my opinion too, of course, but I know I wouldn't want to read it if I hadn't already (accidentally) found out.--PaulTaylor 08:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Friday, 24/11 - Repeat?

Why is the Friday 24 November show a repeat of Kirsty's game? Cipher ^(Yell) 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Banker

• • Tidied it up and now it actually looks presentable. by Platypus
  • someone deleted it. what a naughty person.
  • oh its back up now. god im so happy, im going to dance in my garden.

Formatting Issue

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)

The Jan 7th game...

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)

• I think it's being repeated on Saturday afternoon at quarter to five on Channel 4. Otherwise, it's probably on ther On Demand service at channel4.com/4oD if you're willing to stump up 99p. And the talk page is really only for discussion about the wikipedia article, not about the show, so I probably should be deleting this instead of replying to it...

Description of game format

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)

I have changed the format section, thanks for pointing it out.

• Right, I've bulked up the Format section so that at last it completely describes how the game works, and thankfully it's still not that long. Also I moved the 'box values' section to difectly after Format, where I think it makes more sense; it's pretty relevant to the format of the game, and it's useful to know the info for later sections. Hopefully the whole article is a lot less insular now - I often got the feeling before the article wouldn't mean a lot to you if you didn't already watch the show.--PaulTaylor 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Banker/New Page Discussion

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)

He's a character in a TV show, so why shouldn't he have his own page? - Mikay 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Actually I disagree strongly with John24601. Regular viewers of the show will confirm that the only speculation in the article is speculation suggested by the show itself. He is after all a mystery character so to criticise the article for being speculative is somewhat moot. There is also little or no original analysis; once again the points of speculation are raised specifically - and often discussed on screen -in the TV show itself. The Banker is a brilliantly complex and original character made all the more fascinating by his anonymity and definitely worthy of his own page 217.196.239.2 15:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) croftrock

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)

What date was the £250,000 won?

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).

• What the article meant when it said January 8 was that the Banker's mother spoke to Noel following the £250,000 win, on January 8 (as opposed to speaking to him following the £250,000 win on January 8, if you see what I mean.) But it wasn't punctuated correctly so it didn't actually say that. I've clarified it now anyway, thanks.--PaulTaylor 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

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)

• I'm not sure about losing 80% of the article, but certainly almost all of the stuff in the 'Special Changes' and 'The Banker' section is pretty obscure trivia (or "fancruft" as I believe it's called) and doesn't really belong here. Things like "Double Deal Week", "Viewers' competition" and a couple of other bits really only need to be a single sentence somewhere rather than an entire section each. There's nothing wrong with the article being long, because it's a very successful and important programme in its way, but certainly much of the trivia should go. I don't really know what the policy is for referecing, but I don't see the point in getting rid of useful information just because we have no sources other than that it was on the show.--PaulTaylor 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If necessary, I'll see about getting the current Scratchpad hosting of the game statistics converted to a full place on the Wikia TV wiki, as this would have a different policy on the hosting of fancruft. Elcondor 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started flagging some of the sentences/claims that need referencing and the elements which look to me like original research, although I've only been able to get about half way through the article, there should be more than enough for the subject experts to get going on. I haven't yet started to flag things which aren't noteable, but I will get round to this sometime soon. --John24601 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I take your point that much of the article is unreferenced, I think the number of 'citation needed's in the article now is more than a bit excessive. We don't need to cite a source for every fact in the article. The policy page says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." Also: "Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics." I don't think anyone's going to come along and say "I don't think the boxes were green on Saint Patrick's Day! I demande a citation!". The article just looks ridiculous now. I'm going to try and clean it up a bit.--PaulTaylor 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

By way of an attempt to expedite this, a Wikia wiki has been created for the non-notable stuff [2] - 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)

By the way, that was me - I forgot to sign in Elcondor 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)Dougal18

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)

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)

The Banker should be a new page!!!

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)

Shortening

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)

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)

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)

Point taken. I misread it.. Apologies. Some of the stuff that has gone is very detailed and how those clues build up is a genuinely interesting picture. I would prefer to see it in a seperate section too, without a doubt but would prefer to see it on this page rather than not at all!80.229.246.6 13:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Irrelevances of clear subjectivity aside, the fact remains that the Banker section was sufficiently worthy to warrant discussion as to whether it deserved an article in its own right. To take it upon yourself to override all such ongoing discussion and then even eliminating the current section almost entirely, despite its being tagged, was highly inappropriate. 80.229.246.6 12:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I appreciate the fullness of this explanation and I think without question the facts were not well documented, probably as they are added bit by bit. The LOST section of wikipedia suffers from similar verbosity and fragmentation; indeed all TV related articles do not just 'mystery ones' and they are all referenced poorly as a result also. I am not arguing that point. Plus I think it is unlikely we will agree since my main disappointment about the article's removal is that my kids love the show and find the Banker fascinating and would log on here regularly to see if anything new had been discovered. They are naturally somewhat miserable about the whole thing. I am sure you would redirect them to fansites but my kids use wikipedia as source all the time. As to the force of the argument, I personally think the unusual quasi fact/fictional nature of the Banker and his impact on modern culture is worthy of note. The Banker has been referenced countless times in the last year from panel and comedy shows right up the to the Guardian, the Financial Times and even Newsnight. Suspicions about his identity have made national front page news in the UK. A fictional game show character, remember. Someone who has never been seen; never been heard making regular news and also being interviewed for various articles and magazines. That makes him worthy of note. Consistency of backstory is an irrelevance; you could make the same argument about any fictional charater ever created; in fact inconsistency in important fictional characters is of itself worthy of note and is done so many times through the page of wiki. Must, say, Dame Edna Everage be ignored, in case Barry Humphries hasn't been consistent in his facts? There is on record confirmation from the DoND producers that one person and one person alone controls the Banker and his story and has done from the outset. I think the story of the Banker and his impact as a believable 3 dimensional force despite never even being heard, beyond a manic laugh or two is genuinely extraordinary and worthy of note. You'll probably disagree of course; but then perhaps you think the whole thing rather childish, I don't know. I have to say it certainly feels that way. I'm 46 but then maybe I never grew up. Thanks anyway for listening.80.229.246.6 12:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Paul, you are a gentleman - my son particularly at this point thinks you are fab. He actually has a little scrapbook of stuff so I will have a go myself over the next week at re-writing the article as best I can adding refs and detail. As you say - Hurrah!80.229.246.6 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

David Jones's Game was a Powerful one...

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)

dumbing down

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).