Talk:Main Page

Welcome to the main page talk.

Editing contestants

One thing when categorising contestants, if a certain 'heriarchy' could be maintained, e.g.-

series winners/ coc winners/ finalists/ octochamps/ contestants of series xx/ contestants of coc xx

remove all those that don't apply. Love and peace y'all. User:Nebagram 1707 25 July 2007 amended 1718 same day.

My first impressions

A good start; however, the structure leaves much to be desired. We could have done with a chance to discuss things before giving it this level of unstructured content.

Firstly, what's with such categories as Episodes presented by Richard Whiteley and 9-round games? It makes more sense to categorise series than individual episodes in this way. Of course, that leaves specials, which it might make sense to categorise individually.

Moreover, was it one person's decision or the consensus of a small group of people to title episodes by the overall serial number as opposed to, for example, the series and episode-within-series number or the original broadcast date. That said, I'm not sure what I think is the ideal naming strategy here. -- Smjg 18:13, 31 July 2007 (BST)

1. Categorising by series is different to categorising by format because the finals used 14 rounds in the 9 round era. "Episodes presented by Richard Whiteley" is useful because there's no particular reason that presenters should change over at the end of a series (it was only a coincidence that Whiteley did so) although currently it could be done that way.
2. The naming of the episodes is by number because that seemed convenient, gives concise titles, and provides a useful sorting order for categories. Numbering by series and episode doesn't have any advantages over that. Original broadcast date might be useful, but it's problematic when multiple episodes are broadcast on the same day. We could create redirects manually, but that probably isn't fun. Soo 18:45, 31 July 2007 (BST)

And don't think multiple episodes on the same day won't happen - the series 53 quarterfinals 3 and 4 are proof of that. GJM 20:58, 31 July 2007 (BST)

Indeed. However, what is the practical use of categorising episodes by format? Especially considering that, as these categories grow, few people are going to browse them with any real aim. Moreover, the current system creates an inconsistency: we have a category of finals of the 9-round era, but no corresponding category of finals of the 15-round era. (Except that the very first grand final is categorised as a 9-round - is this correct?) -- Smjg 21:32, 1 August 2007 (BST)

I'm sure adding a category for finals or 15-round finals is no problem, should it prove to be needed. Which it probably is. And the -era categories are very handy as a check, to make sure no games are miscategorised, misentered or similar. GJM 21:44, 1 August 2007 (BST)

I take your point, I don't think categorising by format is fabulously useful. However, having the categories is harmless at worst, and if they do turn out to be useful adding them later would be a ton of work. They might be useful for some kind of automatic processing, even if they serve no purpose for human readers. Also, we do have Category:Grand finals, from which inferring the 15-round finals is not difficult if it were ever necessary. Soo 18:12, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Most wanted completion record

All 15-round octochamps. Cleared, thanks in no small part to myself and Gazm8. User:Nebagram 1/8/7 5:48pm

Well done! And thanks on behalf of our readers. Soo 18:13, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Mark Nyman Cleared. Nice one Soo! User:Nebagram 8/8/7 11:24pm