Talk:Trapped! (TV series)

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Total Rewrite Needed

This article is so badly written and cobbled together I'm not quite sure where to start. Does it really need 28 sections? Does it really need to cover every single angle of every single character of every single game of the entire show? It's very detailed, but the golden rule is, less is more. NKTP (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me At It!

Right, I'm going to have a bash at this article, I've decided as I'm fed up of looking at it in its existing form.

Plan of action for this page as it's getting out of control:

1) Tidy up what we have to date so it doesn't take three days to vertically scroll from top-to-bottom.
2) Decide what's actually worth keeping and what isn't data wise (most of this has clearly from viewings of the TV show and some is surplus to requirements)
3) Have a bloody good prune! This can go from being a jumble of bolted on additions to a really good article after we've finished with it.
4) Possible rewrite, depending on how things go and what's left after it's been ripped to shreds and back. NKTP (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

As per the two comments above. I removed a large amount of unsourced content from this page. TrappedFan re-added lists of contestants. This information is neither verfiable, nor is it useful, as these names (all contestants are referred to by 1st names only) are of no significance to the reader. Suggest deletion of the unsourced content from this page. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have removed names. This information is in neither of the two sources listed, and does not add meaningfully to the article. This vastly overlong article should be condensed to just the information discussed in the UK gameshows entry, rather than being a collection of unnecessary and unverifiable detail. --LukeSurl^{t c} 18:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and trivial content has been added again. [1]. I am requesting 3rd opinions. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion -- This edit [2] which removes unsourced trivia is a good edit. If another editor wants to replace the content then per WP:BURDEN they must at least provide reliable sources. PS you only get one third opinion via WP:3O. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted additions of similar/identical unsourced and WP:INDISCRIMINATE content once again. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LukeSurl

LukeSurl, We Know, that as a experienced wikipedian, what you are doing is for the best interest of the article. But you see, the information that was on the page IS SOURCED. It was sourced over the years by the many people who contributed to the page. I myself am not a single person, but rather a host of wikipedians who use this account to add to Trapped! We don't think that adding the list of saboteurs is unneccesary. I Mean, at leats let the readers of the page HAVE some knowledge about the contestants. We added the lists back in a proper organized fashion, which we don't believe is unsourced or UNNECESSARY by any means, we hope you respect our opinions TrappedFan (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is Wikipedia:Original Research. For the reasons discussed on that page, such content can't be included on Wikipedia. "Sourced" content means content that can be attributed to a reliable source, which has to be published text, rather than an individual's accumulated knowledge. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place for the project you are trying to run here. Perhaps you could set up your own independent Trapped Wiki at Wikia where you could have complete liberty to write what you wish. --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beoyond being unsourced, this is not within the scope of wikipdia plead read WP:NOT specifically wikipdia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a category in which the information I deleted falls. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, TrappedFan has been indefinitely blocked at ANI as a role account due to the admission made above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Games section

More of the same (see previous talk section) over the last few edits. The information added to the article in this edit is textbook original research, as it is unreferenced and appears to reflect an editors personal research on the subject. It is also unnecessarily detailed and long. Regarding Visokor's recent edit summary, "The games of Trapped! have as much right to be on this article as games on other CBBC shows do", I don't know the status of articles for other CBBC shows, however if they have similar sections then they too should be removed (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list repeatedly added

Repeating the issue discussed a few years ago in the sections ago; User:Annamargarita0 is repeatedly adding unsourced episode lists, which consist of, for each episode a UK city and a list of the contestants' first names. I have removed these because this information is wholly unsourced (see WP:Verifiability). Additionally, I do not see the value of listing a large number of names of non-notable and non-identifiable people - essentially this is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I invite the user here to discuss rather than continually adding this without edit summaries. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As before, please can User:Annamargarita0 discuss this here on talk rather than repeatedly adding this unsourced content. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:A1 William as well to please talk here rather than adding this same unsourced content. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rquest for admin

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

As discussed above I have repeatedly asked User:Annamargarita0 to discuss the content they are adding to this page, as I believe it is both unsourced and unnecessary for the page. The pattern of edits is clear from the recent history. Today another user User:A1 William re-added the same content. Please can an administrator intervene here, as the user/users do not appear willing to discuss. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:ARV —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise till now how old these edits were, may be rejected at WP:ARV as stale. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2021

As was the case in 2019, please can can User:Annamargarita0 discuss this here on talk rather than repeatedly adding this unsourced content. --LukeSurl^t c 10:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I added because iMDb IS a reliable source. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not considered a reliable source on the English Wikipedia. Please see WP:IMDB LukeSurl^t c 13:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Radio Times, is that reliable? --Annamargarita0 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can find online archives of Radio Times content, however this does not list the names of the contestants https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?filt=b00818rm#top . Even if this information were verifiable, I can't see the need for it in the article. The article air dates are already in the Transmissions section, and listing a large number of names of non-notable and non-identifiable people is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as discussed above. --LukeSurl^t c 08:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]