Talk:Dragons' Den (British TV programme)/Archives/2013

Incorrect location listed

On the page it says that the location where it's filmed is kept a secret.

This is untrue, it's filmed in Studio F at Pinewood Studios. It's got a page on the Pinewood website. http://www.pinewoodgroup.com/production/dragons-den-series-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.189.242 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragons chart

I am not a fan of the new format for the table showing which series of Dragons' Den each Dragon appeared in. By combining the 3rd & 4th series and the 5th & 6th series, but keeping 1 and 2 separate, it paints an inaccurate picture at first glance. At first glance, you see that Rachel Elnaugh and Doug Richard span two columns of the table, twice as much as Richard Farleigh, even though all three were in 2 series each. It also causes similar problems with Deborah Meaden and James Caan. Frankly, I can't see a good argument for having it this way. It would also not work very well when series 7 comes out. I am glad to hear arguments to the contrary, but unless anyone has an objection, I think it should be changed back to the way it was. Rascalb (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've left the columns combined for now, but have changed the widths so they are correctly weighted. --Tango (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Duncan was in chair 5 for series 9. --E40 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (PDT)

Successful failures

Do you think this subheading should be there when it only displays a quite obvious statement of "there is known to be successful failures?" Is it me or does anyone else disagree and could I get some feedback on that. 78.86.17.213 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Internet

What happened to the reference to the BBC internet version with Shafiq Rasul

BassToneSlap

There was another deal on the second episode of the seventh series. BassToneSlap walked away with a deal from Theo Paphitis and Peter Jones. That has to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.48 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Episode length

Were the episodes from series 1 and 2 1 hour long or 30 minutes? I ask seeing as Dave show 30 minute ones and having just found the of the first 2 series on Play.com, it states the running time as 6 hours but with 5 episodes in both series how can this be? Garsty (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Successful pitches

Perhaps adding 2 new columns, company % offered and company % given? What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.149.108 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be a good Idea but I think this page is becoming a bit to un-readable with the size of the table, perhaps split it up onto individual series pages?Garsty (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the failed pitches are just as interesting or moreso than the successful pitches, so I think the chart should show them all. According to an investigative report mentioned in the article, most of the successful ones are unfulfilled anyhow.Landroo (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have split the tables according to series,, and % offered/accepted would be a good addition, even though it is quite long already. Unsuccessful pitches would be impossible as there are many pitches which aren't shown in full. It would also be ridiculously long as they go through a lot of pitches! Feudonym (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Incipient edit war re: watching

This has been added, deleted, and re-added. I don't believe it has any place in an encyclopedia, but would like others to weigh in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.98.171.2 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering I couldn't watch any of Series 6 on BBC I found this section very useful. Returned today to find that website again but whole section was gone! :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.115.6 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 'useful' isn't a sufficient condition for inclusion. See WP:NOT, esp. WP:NOTREPOSITORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.98.171.2 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What?! 'Useful' is exactly what IS allowed according to the documentations YOU provided links to! Quote "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." You should really verify the content of your sources before writing replies like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.115.6 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The link isn't relevant, and the content itself isn't relevant. It is merely advertising, and therefore shouldn't be included. See WP:ADS and WP:EL. Also, take note of the opening section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. Therefore, if you feel the need to remember the URL of the website, may I suggest you look in the history, and bookmark it. User:Bilky_asko ☎☞ Talk to me, I'm bored! (£1.50 a second) 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the content to a subsection below. User:Bilky_asko ☎☞ Talk to me, I'm bored! (£1.50 a second) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How is the content not relevant if you can watch the episodes of the show on the website?

I'm sorry, but did you not read any of the links? User:Bilky_asko ☎☞ Talk to me, I'm bored! (£1.50 a second) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed content

Watching Dragons' Den

There has been a lot of debate on Internet forums and articles about where it is possible to watch episodes of Dragons' Den on the internet. The flaw which has become evident is that you may only watch the last couple of episodes of the show on BBC's iPlayer. No one knows why they have introduced this restriction but a letter has been sent to the BBC asking them to remove the restriction. There only other ways of watching the show are by either searching for each episode on Youtube, however you will have to watch the shows in parts and go to various different videos. The other way is to use a website I found on Google called FromDragonsDen.co.uk They have compiled every episode of Dragons' Den and you can watch them all online.

Dead link in Ref # 2

The link to #2 ^ Dragons' Den | Where Are They Now? appears to be broken.Landroo (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

Personally I think the "Successful pitches" section should be split into seasonal sections as that part is getting too bloated for the article. That section should also include all unsuccessful pitches with a section. The external link for the website of sucessful pitches should be dropped as Wikipedia is not an vehicle to promote other people's business. Donnie Park (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good idea and something I think which needs do be done before the table grows any longer! Garsty (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This table must be split as soon as possible!!! It is far too big. Dannyboy1209 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I did make this a while ago but never got around to finishing it, but it might be a good start point Example Table--Garsty (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is a great day, somebody do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.68.174 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a table is the best format, perhaps the split should be by season? I don't think the unsuccessful pitches are noteworthy unless they went on to success; Perhaps that section should be expanded with more detail?

The table itself is also lacking a lot of detail, most only have a brief mention of the product, and not what happened next. While the lack of further WP pages for many implies a lot, I think it should be clearer to the reader to separate out the truly successful from the 'winners' of the show who then went nowhere. The ones who are now highly successful have their own articles, although I've just fixed one link that was pointing to the wrong page, and the comment below suggests it wasn't the only one, so at the very least the table needs a cleanup. Bertcocaine (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

further to that, I've just noticed the links are inconsistent - some list their company name as the external webpage, and the webpage column has a link to a source! Other have it correct, showing red or blue WP links, and their external site in the correct column - having a table this size seems to result in additions being done in somewhat haphazard formats, a good reason for removing the table - how many seasons will there end up being? Bertcocaine (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have split up the table, removed redlinks, and only kept links to the website in the last column. Separate page is a good idea but as explained below, not enough references for each pitch. Feudonym (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The table is very long and can be a pain to review all investments. A major issue with creating a page however is that reliably sourced links would have to be produced for the investments that were not fulfilled after the program was shot. The page would also face several cleanups to avoid overdetail of the events of someone's pitch as well as Evan Davis's interview after it's over, but wikipedia users may already be used to these efforts. Personally I'm all for it. Message me if any help can be provided in starting it. ToonIsALoon (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect links

In the succesful pitches section, the links to the pages of the series 8 entrepreneurs are completely wrong where they are present e.g. I doubt that Peter Harrison who was in the 26/06/10 episode is an architect from York who died in 1775! Unfortunately I have no idea how to edit and format wikipedia myself, but thought this would be the right place to mention mistakes in the hope that someone that does understand it can take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.101 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

A request for a Third Opinion about whether the article should contain tabloid sourced criticisms has been removed from the Third Opinion project page for lack of discussion. The Third Opinion project guidelines say:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

In lieu of a Third Opinion, you might consider taking the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Website Link Updates and Company Tracking

Hi, I've been checking some of the links to company pages in "Successful pitches" and finding that many of them are dead. Reasons for this are varied - some companies are being bought out later, or similar. Others are still live but appear to have been untouched for some time. Could someone look into this further/ is there an easier way of tracking company progress that I am unaware of? Anyway the successful pitches page should be updated to reflect current status of companies as far as possible. Jimthree60 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Theo's departure

Please write something about Theo's departure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.105.97 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)