Talk:The Great British Bake Off

Discussion on Giuseppe Dell'Anno

The redirect/merger of the "Giuseppe Dell'Anno" article is proposed at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Redirect Giuseppe Dell'Anno? George Ho (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Ruby Tandoh

The former article Ruby Tandoh is discussed at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Ruby Tandoh. George Ho (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Separate Page for Celebrity Specials

To improve performance of the page and allow for less clutter, would it not make sense to have a separate page for the charity series? At least the Stand Up to Cancer series? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Junior Bake Off seasons

Just wondering: are season/series pages like Junior Bake Off (series 1) and Junior Bake Off (series 2) needed? I searched for reliable secondary and tertiary sources covering them but came up short. I even looked for reliable sources about specific winners to verify their notability without further avail, hoping that WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply. Furthermore, Junior Bake Off (series 8) was draftified, and no further improvements were made. The only ones beyond summarised tables of bakes and juvenile bakers are... viewership ratings and nothing else, and I'm unsure whether ratings are sufficient to retain those pages. I was close to nominating one of them for deletion/redirection, but I figured that I can raise this here first. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I nominated Junior Bake Off (series 7) for deletion. Your inputs there are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Other series of Junior Bake Off are later nominated as AFD. Your inputs there are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Distinguish

I belive that a distinguish template linking to The Great British Fake Off is necessary due to the fact that it is one letter off. OLI 16:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Absent an edit summary, the edit looks like vandalism. Once you are reverted, stop re-adding the edit until you gain consensus for it. It's pretty iffy at best. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Its one letter off. OLI 01:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How is one letter an ify sudgestion. OLI 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

{{Ping|@Drmargi}} Could you answer my question? 2600:1700:3351:1610:4477:46DD:9DA9:2745 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

On the top summary of the page

Is it necessary to include a comprehensive list of all the winners in the summary paragraph at the top of the page? I instantly got spoiled on the winner of the 14th season, and am wondering if it could be moved off the top of the page. I am sure many people before me have had their experience ruined by this decision. StrangeREdits (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to remove information per WP:SPOILER. It has already been aired, therefore the information can be included. All such articles have winners listed, someone will complain whether it is in the lede or within the body of the text, if you are in a country that airs a show later, then don't read the article. Hzh (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposition raised here by StrangeREdits, not primarily because the information is spoiling in nature (though I empathize with them in that regard) but primarily because it is redundant with the remaining content of the article, and because a list of 14 consecutive names is far too granular for a lead section.

This article should follow the example of the majority of other competition show pages and progressing show pages (especially for shows which are similarly long-running), which do not list the conclusion of their plot threads or competition instances in the lead. See, for instance, the pages for Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, and, incidentally, Junior Bake Off.

The information would not be removed from the article on this basis, merely from the lead. I would also request that Hzh refrain from further reverting of edits on this matter until they have convinced an outweighing consensus here as to why this particular competition show should be an exception to the trend outlined in the previous paragraph. Peter Folsaph (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, so it is never redundant. If the information is relevant summary of the show, then it can be there. You support the removal because of a claim against spoiler, and WP:SPOILER applies to lede, meaning that it is unacceptable to remove it. This has been there for years, so you should not remove it without discussion for whatever reasons, especially when you have been reverted. There is really no such rule about articles on long-running show not having winners, plenty of other articles with many seasons have winners on the lede, e.g. The Voice (American TV series), The Voice UK, and American Idol. Hzh (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP: SPOILER applies to avoiding the removal of information on such grounds; I remind you that the removal of the information from the article is not being proposed here.

The list of winners is not necessary for a summary of the format of the show, nor of the content of the page. An attempt to provide detailed content that belongs later in the article within the lead is what renders the information redundant. Please review WP:LEAD and make a good-faith effort to envision what "the basics" and a "concise overview" would entail in this scenario.

I furthermore submit that your examples are cherry-picked and arbitrary; two of them are the same show. If I had used your methodology in my response, I could have listed 47 of the 51 international versions of Survivor which follow the pattern I described for the lead sections of their respective pages (and not a single one lists off winners from more than one season). It remains the clear trend across Wikipedia to avoid long lists of victors in the lead sections of gameshow articles. Peter Folsaph (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I notice furthermore that 11 of the 14 names in the list are not considered notable in themselves, and simply redirect to either List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7) or List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)

The lead section should aim to concisely establish the nature and notability of the show as a whole. Such season-by-season minutiae, propped up by a sequence of 11 nearly identical redirects, are inappropriate for the lead.

Therefore, I propose the following replacement sentence:

"Notable winners of the competition include John Whaite, Nadiya Hussain, and Giuseppe Dell'Anno." Peter Folsaph (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You were reacting to (or following on from) the first comment and this is your rationale for deleting it - Removed redundant and spoiling full list of victors from lead, so you are being less than honest about the reason for the deletion in this discussion. WP:SPOILER is a specific rule that you violated, while there is no rule against list of names (WP:LEAD in fact gives an approved example that has a long list of names in its fist paragraph - Brassica oleracea). For example The X Factor (British TV series) gave a long list of judges, as did The Voice (American TV series) for its coaches. It is whatever that the editors believe are important as summary of the show, and some shows simply think the winners are important information. You having nothing to support your edit. Hzh (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was part of my original rationale. And after your initial reminder regarding WP:SPOILER, I immediately dropped it as a primary point of concern. I would not have even mentioned it on this page, if it had not been involved in the other user's opening of this thread here.

Your continued belaboring of that as the main point in this discussion is odd, as we moved to a different primary concern from my first entry into this talk page onward. All that remains to be determined now is if this particular list is an appropriate element for the summarizing introductory section at the top of the article.

The issue is not that there is a list of names, but that there is a list of 14 consecutive names spanning 14 individual competitions, only 3 of which contribute meaningfully to the notability of the article's topic. The other 11 are redirects masquerading as noteworthy details. This would never be the case with celebrity judges or coaches as in The Voice (American TV series), as all of them independently contribute to the notability of the topic. Nor is it the case for Brassica oleracea.

That is what now supports my edit, and I would like to hear argumentation as to why the alternative sentence presented above is not a more appropriate line to include in a concise lead section. Peter Folsaph (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You appear to change you argument as you go along. You said it's far too granular for a lead section, now that I pointed that there is nothing against that in WP:LEAD, you are saying that it's OK if the names mentioned are well-known? There is nothing in the rules about that. None of the points you made could be supported by guidelines or policies, so any argument comes down essentially to "because I like it that way". The X Factor (British TV series) is an interesting case, because it gave a partial list of names, but only two of those were winners, and two weren't. You can see why they may not want to give the whole list of winners when the best-known act that came out of the show (One Direction) weren't the winner, but the names it chose to give instead is entirely subjective, and that is unsatisfactory as it violates WP:NPOV. Just listing the winners is not subjective in any way, and that would be the best way of doing it. A lot of the names in this article originally had their own page, someone decided to turn them into redirects. Frankly there wasn't a lot of discussion when so many of them got redirected in one go, you could say for some of them the decision to redirect is subjective because they weren't discussed in any detail if at all. Therefore deciding to use those who have their own article as indication of notability would be subjective as well. Just giving a list of the winners would be non-subjective and fair. Hzh (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the conversation evolves over time. Otherwise it would simply be us repeating ourselves ad nauseam. You yourself have now moved from attempting to establish the conventionality of the current phrasing to attempting to establish the 'objectivity' of the current phrasing.

Now, to be clear: I still think it's too granular for the lead. That stance hasn't changed. I do believe that the level of granularity involved here is a violation of WP:LEAD on the grounds of excessive detail unbefitting of a summary (especially for a summary that's supposed to be concise). I don't personally think any article should list off large numbers of competitors or participants in the lead, except in situations where the entries in the list are themselves so notable as to contribute to the notability of the article's subject. Hence my stance on the judges and coaches. This isn't the only article to make such a mistake, but it is the one whose talk page we're on.

All that matters now, as ever, is what results in the best version of the article, which is most consistent with the goals of the site.

It is interesting that those winners' pages were redirected over time, but all that tells me is that the question of whether the full list's inclusion in the lead still makes sense in light of those changes has not until now been taken seriously. It's a list which will only grow more unwieldy and less appropriate for the lead section as the years go by. Replacing it with a sentence like the one proposed earlier is an easy improvement to the lead section's function as a concise summary of its subject. Peter Folsaph (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely wrong for you to suggest there is anything equivalent in what I do with what you did, and frankly obnoxious. I've just been responding to the points you made - you specifically asked me about your suggestion for an edit, and I responded why it violates NPOV. I have rebutted all the original points you made for your removal of information in the lede, and you have come up with nothing that is actually based on guidelines and policies. What you said is simply what you like, throwing arguments at the wall and see what sticks, and that is not a basis for any further discussion. Hzh (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion that including a list of all potentially relevant names in the lead is the most neutral or objective approach is simply false, and is in general not how Wikipedia is operated. Including such a full list is also a subjective decision, based on the evaluation that all such figures are of both high and relatively equal importance to the subject. Think, for example, of the lead section of the article President of the United States. Do you think that the focus of that lead section on figures like George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt is a demerit for that article because a full list of all Presidents there would improve the article's objectivity? Do you think its current focus represents an 'unfairness' to, say, William Henry Harrison? If not, why not?

I maintain that full removal of this particular list of competitors from the lead section is supported by the way this situation is handled on the vast majority of similar pages on the site, by the list's inclusion of people who do not significantly contribute to the notability of the article's topic, and by the guidelines for producing a concise introduction in WP:LEAD.

You maintain that the full retention of the list is supported by the fact that a few other articles have leads like this, and later added that you feel it offers some kind of objective fairness.

As a result of this disagreement, I offered a reasonable compromise solution: an alternative sentence which would neither entirely remove the list, nor retain its excessive detail and repetitive redirected links.

Rather than engaging with the merits of that alternative or offering an alternative of your own, you have turned to a flat denial of the validity of any possible alternatives. So, I agree with you that there is no basis for further discussion here, as we will now need to hear from an impartial third party on this matter before it can be settled.

And incidentally, though it's immaterial to the discussion, I do hope that I simply caught you on a bad week or something. You've repeatedly violated your duty to assume good faith in this conversation, first by accusing me of being "less than honest," then by accusing of me of simply chasing preference rather than argumentation, and finally by alleging that my largely unchanged position throughout this conversation entails "throwing arguments at the wall." Now, I've been on Wikipedia a long time, so I've had many positive interactions with understanding and intelligent editors. As a result, I am not personally bothered when I occasionally encounter such undue hostility. But if a newer editor were to encounter such aggression, they may be discouraged from engaging with the site further. You've been on the site long enough to know that kind of bad behavior reflects poorly on all of us. So, I sincerely hope you will approach future interactions with other editors with more care and tact. Peter Folsaph (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you have a habit of mischaracterising what I said to make your argument (and it will get you called dishonest if you keep doing it). You turned a reply you requested from me about your proposed wording into my trying to move to a different argument, and now turned what was an issue I have with that proposed edit into some other general statement. I have already said why suggesting using only those with their own articles may be unsound (some of them got redirected without much of a discussion), and I gave the example of The X Factor (British TV series) where some random contestants were named. If you don't understand the point about NPOV, it's like writing "notable presidents of the United States include George Washington, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden", (You think no one will object?)

I have no issue at all if you want to involve someone else. Much clearer though if you just do a request for comment with different edit options people can choose. Hzh (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

[Requested third opinion]: The lead of this article would be improved considerably if all the personal names were removed there, and mentioned sufficiently in the body of the text. That would forego any perception of clutter or undue importance at the top. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this matter. I am persuaded by your assessment. I was wrong to base part of my previous compromise solution on the relative notability of various minor celebrities, or lists thereof.

I now agree with you that removal of the entire second paragraph that currently appears in the lead would be a superior improvement. That would bring the article most closely in line with the Wiki policies of MOS:INTRO saying the lead should avoid being overly specific and that greater detail should be reserved for the body, and WP:DETAIL likewise saying a level of information beyond a quick summary should be reserved for sections outside the lead. Peter Folsaph (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but in view of the repeated reversals going on, I find it inconcievable that anyone would want a paragraph consisting only of massive name-dropping to dominate the lead of any Wikipedia article, when all that can be covered below. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)