Talk:Pointless

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors[edit]

This article has a lot of errors but I am not sure how to address them because as an American I've never seen the show. The best example of something is when it says if no one gave an answer, the team gets no points---because if nobody answered the survey with that answer at all they get 100 points automatically, at least that's how the show has been descirbed to me. hh153.9.20.30 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've never seen the show how can you say the article is wrong? The article is correct: a correct answer is not defined as one that someone in the survey gave, it is an absolute fact. Central African Republic IS a country begining with 'C' but it was not given by any of the people surveyed, therefore it is a correct answer that scores one point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.187.12 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ermm, a correct answer that nobody gives in the survey scores *zero* points, not one. This is just in case in future some quiz-show archaeologist decides to resurrect this over-average daytime show and their only source is this wikipedia talk page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewbloch (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.165.51 (talk) [reply]

Series 4[edit]

Article says Series 4 started on March 14th, but I've watched a couple of episodes and it's just a repeat of series 3, not 100% sure though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.10.72 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series 4 did start on 14 March 2011 and aired its 25th episode on 15 April, it took a break after that and the BBC are currently airing series 3 episodes, it is unknown when series 4 will air its other 25 episodes. --92.25.164.186 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of round types[edit]

Are the terms "original format", "possible answers" and "names and answers" official, coined by whoever wrote the description here, or taken from some other source? Just thinking about whether it would be right to change the names to something more sensible - "clues and answers" would seem a better name than "names and answers", for instance. — Smjg (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Celebrity Guests[edit]

Series 3, episode's 2 and 3. Paul Daniels and Jonny Robinson are "guests" not participants - how best to put this into the table? (Paul asks the questions for a round where he is the topic and Jonny Robinson replaces Richard briefly making a visual joke about soap star characters changing actors but no-one in the cast commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.217.237 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would not the term Totally Pointless Celebrity Guests better reflection the nature of this and other TV game shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.190.145 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples?[edit]

I've never seen the show and don't feel I've got it by reading the article. Maybe an example of the type of questions and answers would help. Or maybe my problem is with the line Players on the show attempt to give answers worth as few points as possible, aiming to have the lowest score amongst the players in each round. Do they try to give correct answers? Or guess the least popular wrong answer? Or what? Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to earn the least amount of points as possible, ideally giving a pointless answer to get 0 points. Answers to a question can earn between 0-100 points. A wrong answer automatically sees a team get the maximum score of a hundred points. If a question is right, the number of points a team scores will correspond to the number of the 100 people in the survey who returned that correct answer. So more obscure answers will return fewer points.

Example: If a question for the British gameshow was name a state of USA. Boston would be an incorrect answer and earn a maximum of 100 points. New York may be one of the better known states to which many people in the survey named. So if 92 out of 100 gave it as an answer the team would get 92 points for naming it. Then perhaps a lesser known State; maybe Wyoming, saw only 2 people surveyed reply with it. Therefore a team answering Wyoming would earn 2 points. If no one replied in the survey with Wyoming, a team answering it would get a Pointless answer. This method can also lead to teams trading off between giving definite correct answers and giving an answer they are unsure about but which if correct - could be more obscure. A team in a head-to-head may feel like they need to get a low score to stay in the game so they may know several answers for definite but may feel that these are too well known and will earn too many points. Instead they may take a risk with an answer that they feel has a chance of being correct but are could also be wrong. However, if it is correct, they may obtain a much lower score and stay in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.72.6 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop[edit]

The laptop is a prop. It is not integral to the production of the show, nor is it a main focus of gameplay. This is not the same as the wheel on Wheel of Fortune, since that prop is the main focus of the game and a notable aspect of the show.

The focus of the article previously used as a reference for the laptop is Osman's affiliation with the show, and only mentions the laptop in passing as a notation of trivia. Mentioning the laptop in this article falls under WP:HTRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AldezD (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The laptop is a dummy. That is a fact, and the fact has been noted in a reliable source. Your opinion that this amounts to "indiscriminate" "trivia" is a subjective judgement, from which I dissent. The editors of the Radio Times would not have published the fact if they believed it irrelevant. I believe the laptop is an integral part of the set dressing. To demonstrate my good faith, I now seek a broad consensus amongst all editors, and all can then judge whether to reinstate the fact. What do other editors think? Chabhlaigh (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The laptop is mentioned in passing and is anecdotal. Mentioning the laptop once in a story about Osman's affiliation with the show is not WP:SIGCOV of a prop used on a television show. AldezD (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AldezD, your opinion is clear. What is the general consensus amongst other editors?Chabhlaigh (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Osman's laptop is very notable indeed given that it is a very visible piece of dressing that even partially obsures Osman. A quick look at AldezD's editing history shows attempts at ownership of TV game show related articles. A quick look at AldezD's talk page history shows a continued brushing off of other's comments as they are frequently deleted without reply. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The laptop is a prop, and reference to it in this article is WP:TRIVIA. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the prop, and the earlier ref only mentions laptop in passing. Whether or not a prop is visible on-screen or if it partially obscures a cast member is not information that meets criteria for inclusion. AldezD (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently, there are two editors who disagree with you, so consensus is not on your side. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Game Show?[edit]

Instead of Pointless (game show), might not the title be changed to Pointless Game Show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.190.145 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless is the name of the show, so that's what the article would ideally be called. However, there are other articles on topics with the name "Pointless", so Wikipedia disambiguates article titles by putting parentheses like "(game show)" in the page name. We would only call the article Pointless Game Show if the show itself was called "Pointless Game Show" instead of just "Pointless". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh! 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of topics covered on the encyclopedia. Cúchullain t/c 16:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Pointless (game show) → Pointless – The book's been deleted, so now this is the only thing left called Pointless. Unreal7 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose compared to Pointlessness the British game show is WP:RECENT and not of overwhelming or enduring encyclopedic importance. If the move goes ahead then Pointless will have to move to Pointless (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. It's been a very popular game show for more than six years. No recentism at all. Unreal7 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While there are other items on the dab page, there is only one live article. Agree with In ictu on the need for a multi-move. Dohn joe (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However i disagree with the fact that disam page should be moved. It is my opinion it should be deleted as G6 as it only disambiguates one live article. If the rest were notable then an article would of been created. Blethering Scot 18:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and move Pointless to Pointless (disambiguation). The only article we have with this exact name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Repeats[edit]

The article shows a table of the various series of the show. It shows series 14 running up to the end of February and series 15 starting in March. I'm not sure where this series 15 is being aired but the pointless episodes airing on BBC One during March have been repeats of an older series (and the real give away, apart from the familiarity of the questions and contestants, is that Osman's table has reverted to the original design). BBC iPlayer confirms that it was series 12 that was aired. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I rather think undue weight is being given to the "Cornershop" business, which was a storm in a teacup consisting entirely of the bizarre projections of random viewers. Wikipedia is not a Twitter mirror. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity edition: series overlap?[edit]

Currently the article lists the "Pointless Celebrities" edition broadcast from S7 onwards as thus:

  • Series 7 start date 11 April 2015, end date 26 September 2015
  • Series 8 start 29 August 2015, end 30 January 2016
  • Series 9, start 9 January 2016, end 3 September 2016
  • Series 10, start 14 May 2016

Unless I'm reading that totally wrong, there seems to be overlap in the start and end dates. My question is this: how can that be? Isn't it usual for one series to end before the next starts? 101090ABC (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pointless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transmissions section[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced broadcast information to this article. Also, this content falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. AldezD (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are waging an edit war here. I count 4 reverts to various others you have carried out without explaining yourself which is grounds for a complaint/block. I have looked over the policy you are quoting and I don't see that it applies here. The transmission listing of each season of the show is used in a great number of articles so I do not see why you should be removing it here anyway.--Tigranis (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation has been provided. The content is unsourced and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. You continue to reintroduce unsourced television directory content which does not meet WP guidelines. Please stop adding unsourced material. AldezD (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the transmissions section fall under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Loads of TV shows, including game shows, have them and it's never been a problem there. BangJan1999 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unsourced television episode directory of air dates. It's not content that falls under MOS:TVPLOT. It's indiscriminate scheduling information. AldezD (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the section did have extensive citations (similar to how Only Connect does it) do you think it would be good for inclusion? BangJan1999 21:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AldezD- Would you please point out the specific part of the policies (I can't find anything) you are quoting that supposedly prohibits the transmissions table? I have looked at MOS:TVPLOT and it is blatantly not relevant to your argument as dates of series airing are NOT plots of shows. Otherwise we should restore the content and discuss where to get references.--Tigranis (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This is unsourced information. You need to add sources that meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Tigranis said, can you quote the specific parts of the policies that supposedly prohibits the transmissions table? BangJan1999 11:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is clear in how it applies to unsourced content and has been linked already in this discussion. Information added to articles must be sourced and verifiable. You are adding unsourced information to the article. WP:PROVEIT details who is responsible for adding sources when adding content. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." WP:SOURCE details what counts as a reliable source. AldezD (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a complete list of Pointless transmissions on the BBC website here and here so there are reliable sources that can backup the table. Also I still don't understand how you think it is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. BangJan1999 12:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those links provide the number of episodes in each series. But not each series sub-page provides WP:V sources for start & end dates, nor for dates on which episodes did not air. The guide page for Series 18 shows an episode count of 55 episodes, but does not verify start date of 2 October 2017, end date of 12 February 2018, nor that "Series 18 took a break from 6 November 2017 to 1 January 2018". You need to provide WP:V sources that offer this information in order to include those dates and detail, and this applies to the other data in the proposed table. AldezD (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each individual episode page contains the date when said episode aired (Here's the one for Series 18, Episode 55) so including the pages for the first and last episodes for each series as citations would work I think. I do think that the "took breaks" section is a bit listcrufty and too hard to verify properly and wouldn't mind having it removed. Here's the sort of thing I have in mind. (I've only done series 1 so far). BangJan1999 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; your suggestion should meet requirements of verifiability that other articles in the same vein have used. Also worth pointing out that the dissenting editor (who routinely deletes all content on its talk page to conceal the record of opposition and complaint from other editors) could have saved a lot of hassle by using this talk page at the beginning instead of just deleting without trying to find ways of improving the article. This is also mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. Nevertheless it has very recently attempted to remove substantial content from Only Connect, also without discussion --Tigranis (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request:
Although this dispute is between more than two editors, I'll still weigh in here...while I don't condone edit warring (which is why the article has been protected), I still agree with AldezD; that section is unsourced and indeed violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Erpert, thanks for your input. AldezD (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erpert May I ask why you think this section violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. BangJan1999 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::WP:NOTTVGUIDE is pretty straightforward, but if that section was sourced and was written in a different tone, maybe it wouldn't violate that guideline. But honestly, I don't really have any interest in this subject, so if this is still under dispute, I would suggest opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the objection to the entire section, or to the notes column giving the details? in We almost always have such sections for major shows; if the show is important enough we include every individual episode. We should not make an exception for this one without a general discussion of the matter. Restricting it to major shows is in my opinion enough to avoid TVguide. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

I have fully protected this article for 3 days due to persistent edit-warring. Please discuss your concerns on this talk page. Fish+Karate 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request comment on the removal "Transmissions" section[edit]

There is a clear consensus to keep the "Transmissions" section.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 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 "Transmissions" section be removed? BangJan1999 12:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Keep- the transmission info is extremely useful and serves one of the purposes that Wikipedia is needed for, supplying information that is not easy to get otherwise.--82.69.27.238 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- just add a ref for each series--86.205.146.217 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- meet verifiability by using sources already suggested above.--Tigranis (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- as mentioned above by Tigranis. BangJan1999 00:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First off apologies I restored it not realising there was an RFC however I'm not reverting as per BRD (Aldez removed, They were reverted, They discuss), That aside as per above I'm not seeing any valid reason to delete and I would go as far as to say this isn't FANCRUFT nor is it anywhere near a TVGUIDE. –Davey2010Talk 23:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We generally do have lists of episodes of shows like this. Consistency is important in an encyclopedia , so people know what they can expect to find. I\(I am assuming that this counts as a major show). DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets the requiremets as mentioned above by Tigranis. Robertgombos (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

See also Talk:Pointless#Third opinion response above. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

French version[edit]

I have made an article for the French adaptation of the show Personne n'y avait pensé !, as five seasons in ten years on national TV is more notable than the summer flings that some of the other foreign versions had. However, the French Wikipedia article for the French version of the show is linked in the Wikidata system to the English Wikipedia article for the UK version. Should it be redirected so the FR page on the FR show links to the EN page about the FR show? Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pointless&oldid=1205800819"