Talk:The Gadget Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well... I guess some people watched The Gadget Show's item on Wikipedia, and then ignored its advice to act responsibly. I can't even comprehend the number of edits to find a suitable last version to revert to. Lukelabern 19:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, reverting the vandalism on this page was a nightmare, and as a response I have requested page protection for this article due to the high volume of vandalism that has occured on this article until things calm down. Sonic 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I have edited it and kept a copy of the page so I can easily revert it back. I also added a next episode chapter. Unfortunatly it is the last in the series! Jakehall2 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say i love the gadget show and i think the wiki subject was really appealing considering this is my first time here.. so thank you

thanks for telling us about wiki.it was very intresting.

Contents 1 Deletion 2 Vandalism 3 Evaluation of Wikipedia on "The Gadget Show", broadcast April 17 2006 4 BIG PROBLEM 5 Is there anything wrong with adding a simple Next Episode section? Obviously. I keep adding it and next time I have a look. ***Poof*** it has gone! Any Ideas? Jakehall2 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 6 Presenter Sections 7 Show Content Section - Is it really required? 8 Cleanup

[edit] Deletion

Shouldn't this article be deleted!?
Because it is cleary not a subject but a show. Just like the article I made: Magicgrafx Entertainment

>x<ino 00:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you were requesting to ask for The Gadget Show to be deleted, you could end up asking for 1/10th of Wikipedia to be deleted! I think considering the contribution the show has made to getting technology information out to the viewers and the millions of people who watch the show when it is on should easily make it Wikipedia worthy.

And I checked Magicgrafx Entertainment, it isn't a show, but a website, and a website needs to be extremely popular for inclusion in Wikipedia, if I remember (I tried to find the article on Wikipedia which details the requirements, but it appears to have disappeared off the face of the earth!) a website needs a Google PageRank of at least 8 to be included. Sonic 07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but have you read what Wikipedia is all about? There's no reason to delete this article on the basis of the subject matter; as the show itself says, it is Britain's "number one tech show" and one of five's most watched shows. Lukelabern 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok...lets get this right. Some guy from Africa checks some articles, and saw Gadget Show, what will it do to him? Will it inform in of some information!? NO. This article lacks data. All I justs see just empty sections and some little information in some sub section. Face it! I don't care if half the damn world watches this show, it doesn't stand as an article. Yes, I do also watch this show, but what good information will it give to me?

If you were requesting to ask for The Gadget Show to be deleted, you could end up asking for 1/10th of Wikipedia to be deleted! I think considering the contribution the show has made to getting technology information out to the viewers and the millions of people who watch the show when it is on should easily make it Wikipedia worthy. I don't think so! There are thousands of article that have their own section, eg, Maths, English, Science, Music, Games, Cultue, Country ect. How many damn articles have something about a tv show?

Anyway, this Wikipedia thing is just a joke. It suppose to have usefule information about a subject, educational and community things. Because if this show is to be accepted, then other shows should also be accepted.

>x<ino 15:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But it still depends on a popularity of the show, as explained above, The Gadget Show is one of Five's most successful programmes and a leader in the field of technology programming on British television. I still disagree strongly with its deletion, but do agree in principle to adding more data to the article, it does seem a little sparse. Sonic 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

GADGET SHOW ROCKS AS MUCH AS FREE MONEY!!

Gadget Show is the best, watch it every week!!! Its funny how the prizes are always their "best ever!!" lol!!! DONT DELETE THIS PAGE!!!!

[edit] Vandalism

It might be worth keeping the semi protection on this article on until Sunday 23 April 2006, well after the repeat showing of the Wiki and Wikipedia feature on The Gadget Show on Five has aired and so to avoid a repeat of the vandalism that was caused on Monday 17 April when the feature was shown for the first time. If things calm down then I will request unprotection for this article. Sonic 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth watching the repeat, apparently they vandalised the Jimmy Wales page as part of the show. --Salix alba (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't vandalise that entry, but article was used as an example of the problem of vanity edits. BTW, they showed that EB doesn't have an entry for Brad Pitt !! --mervyn 12:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Bradbury created a ficticious page on Jon Bently to test out the response of Wikipedian's reaction to vandalism. But If that piece may herald possibly a million or more users, then I think it's a worthwhile vandalism. Lukelabern 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jon Bentley page had a reference to the gadget show, which made little sense. I've now removed it. If there is some link to the show maybe someone could add an appropriate sentence. --Salix alba (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As the repeat showing of The Gadget show has passed, without incident, I have requested the article be unprotected again, as I can no longer see any danger of vandalism to the page. Sonic 12:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of Wikipedia on "The Gadget Show", broadcast April 17 2006

Last night, I saw the "The Gadget Show's" piece on Wikipedia. I hope that those who had began to watch the programme stayed until the end to see the overall evaluation of Wikipedia. Initially, Jon Bentley said that the article on "The Gadget Show" was out of date. This rather obscured how up-to-date articles in Wikipedia, in general, are. Those who did see the programme until the end will remember seeing comparisons between Wikipedia and the online version of Encyclopaedia Brittanica. These can be summarised as: Wikipedia's strengths: Is better on pop culture and its articles are more up-to-date; it is cheaper. Encyclopaedia Brittanica on-line's strengths: More clarity and less political bias in articles. I very much hope that people who only saw the first part were not left with the impression that Wikipedia articles are out of date, which they are emphatically not (in the "Discussion" pages by the article on <<Wikipedia>>, I raised the question of whether Wikipedia is the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia. Having seen now that it is even more up-to-date than another online encyclopaedia, I stick to that view). ACEO 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was actually Jason Bradbury who presented the piece. Sorry to be a nuisance, just thought I should point it out. Lukelabern 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also watched the show...but it was aired today! the 11:30 am one, on channel FIVE, and date now is 22/04/2006. So how was it aired on the 17?

>x<ino 17:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's show (22/04/2006) was a repeat of the Monday (17/04/2006) show shown at 19:15. Sonic 17:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIG PROBLEM

[edit] Is there anything wrong with adding a simple Next Episode section?



Obviously. I keep adding it and next time I have a look.

***Poof***

it has gone!

Any Ideas?

Jakehall2 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, when I have read it, it does seem like a advertisement for the show and therefore could not be considered Wikipedia worthy, and anyway, the information would be out of date in a week. As well as that, there are concerns about the pictures you put on that section with copyright. Sonic 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (by the way it is the last in the series!) Jakehall2 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My previous reversion of the next episode section was because it was clearly a copyright violation. The text I reverted was a cut and paste from their website, with no attempt to rewrite in our own words. Copyright violations are a big no-no for wikipedia as it could place the project in a dodgy legal position. Listing next episodes is also problematic as in a weeks time it will be out of date and need removing. End of the day we are an encyclopedia and not a TV listing page and its rare for future episodes to be listed. See Wikipedia:Five pillars for guidance as to what is considered acceptable content. --Salix alba (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just watched the show expecting the worst but was pleasantly suprised - although the concept of people changing the pages to see how fast we react should not be encouraged or we'll just end up with lot's more work! Overall comments on Wiki from the shows website are

'Pop Culture - GOOD Wikipedia will tell you a lot more about pop culture topics than Britannica Online. Clarity - POOR Many entries are confused and some are almost unreadable Political Bias - POOR Any entry in Wikipedia that has any possible political angle should be treated carefully. Topicality - GOOD The beauty of Wikipedia is ... every entry can be constantly updated. Price - BRILLIANT! It's completely free to use

...Wikipedia is far from perfect, and, unlike Britannica, can prove unreliable as a sole source of information. But on this one site you will find more information on more topics in more detail than anywhere else in the world. As long as you use it as a first source, which you then check and double check elsewhere, it is brilliant. So, go on, have a wiki!'

which is quite positive. There are lot's of tv shows that have a wiki article. Whether 'wikipedia will should be considered a 'gadget' I'll leave in the air, neverthless the show was good publicity for Wikipedia

Johnmarkh 11:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As Sonic stated, the introduction of this article is in need or a re-write as it reads like an advertisement.

[edit] Presenter Sections

Why have the main article links been removed from the article? From what I can see, the main article links, as shown, for example:

Main article: The Gadget Show

conform to the Wikipedia Guide to layout, which shows how an article should be laid out, so why do the main article links for the presenters keep getting removed? As far as I can see and the only explaination given, "overkill" cannot be a suitable explaination, I have used the same links on other articles, for example, on the ITV Play article without complaint or removal.

Source: Wikipedia Guide to Layout - Body Sections Sonic 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Not Verified template to the section, especially regarding Jeremy Ketchell, whom I can see has no connection with the show. If anyone can prove otherwise, I suggest this should be deleted. Sonic 19:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the not verified template for Jeremy Ketchell. I will still dispute the section until someone can verify that Jeremy Ketchell does review gadgets for the shows website, because I can see no such evidence on the website itself. Sonic 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the podcast [1] and compared it with the section on the article. This section...

* Jeremy Ketchell Finds how to... convert iTunes files to other formats.

...was actually presented by Jason Bradbury, not Jeremy Ketchell, and I have edited the article to correct that error. It reinforces the statement I made that Jeremy Ketchell was made up and should be deleted from the article. Sonic 16:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show Content Section - Is it really required?

I've noticed someone has added information about the summer special shown as the last show of series four of the show. As this will get outdated, is it required and therefore be deleted, or can it be adjusted so it carries brief information about what The Gadget Show covers in a typical show? I also can't see why we need information on products that the show rated best, it does read like an advertisement to me and in my opinion goes against the Neutral Point of View. What do other people think? Sonic 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I say show content for magazine shows are un-encyclopedic. Reword to give a typical show could be good, if there are any features which run every week then these could be included. --Salix alba (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your viewpoint, maybe a section with a brief description of each section of the show, e.g. main features, The Critical List, How To... guides etc. would be more in keeping with the encyclopedic style for the article. Sonic 16:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section as described in my last edit above. Sonic 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I think the article needs checking through for spelling and grammar, as well as some checks on truthfulness. I've never remembered The Gadget Show on Ftn for example! --tgheretford (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (formerly Sonic)