Talk:The Great British Bake Off/Archive 1

Melton Mowbray pork pies
The edition broadcast on September 13 2011 on pies said a considerable deal about the famous pork pies of Melton Mowbray. I wondered whether that could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Images
Can someone that knows how to add images with the correct license, could you please add;
 * A main image, such as the title of the show
 * An image/or more of series one
 * An image/or more of series two

As without some images on this page I feel that it lacks some interest. "Docwhoaza93 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)"

Internal links
Should more wiki articles be linked to off this page?

Example: 1 	 	 	 	 	2


 * Just wondering, why is the Technical Challenge list 3rd? It's the middle challenge in the show. Hzh (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

High ratings
Could it be put in this article that this programme had more than twice the ratings of any other BBC Two programme? That is what I heard on You and Yours today (October 4 2012). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that it should be mentioned (other BBC 2 shows like Top Gear have high ratings, so I'm not sure what "any other BBC 2 programme" means here), although it is probably worth mentioning that the final of Season 3 had the best ratings of all channels. Hzh (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be mentioned that this was the highest viewed programme on BBC One when it was on BBC One. Carltonio (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs reorganizing and more work
At the moment the specials and spin-offs are taking up too much space in here. They are not the main topic of this page, therefore it is rather lopsided. The article therefore needs expanding on the main subject, for example, a section on the format of the competition is necessary, see for example The X Factor (UK TV series) and MasterChef (UK TV series). Since there are individual pages for the first 3 series, detailed ratings are not appropriate for the main page (I have moved them), and only series average should be used for the main page if available. Hzh (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in first paragraph
Could someone remove the list of winners in the first paragraph? A lot of users, including myself, like to read up on the show while we're watching it, but don't want every season spoiled! It's unnecessary information and could be handled elsewhere in the document.

This is a big problem with this page. The winners of each season are simply not important enough that they need to be displayed so prominently on the page, but as long as they are then nobody who hasn't seen the entire series can use the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.113.231 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, see Spoiler. --  AxG /  ✉  21:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Exercise a little personal responsibility if you don't want to be spoiled, don't go where you might be.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

GBBO
The first paragraph says that the "programme is often referred to as Bake Off or GBBO". Is the programme really often referred to as GBBO? I have never heard it referred to as that. Vorbee (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

OK - I saw it on Channel Four last night (Tuesday 5 September) and I saw that GBBO does appear in the bottom left-hand corner of the television screen. Vorbee (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Article lead
Please note that the lead is meant to be a concise overview of the article's topic per WP:LEAD. It is not meant to give a blow-by-blow account of the presenters and judges. Please try to keep it concise, and add the details to individual series or create a separate section on judges and presenters if necessary. Hzh (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to reach consensus or give us all orders? The article, infobox and lede should reflect the history of the show, not create a revisionist world where the BBC version never existed.  Restored to WP:STATUSQUO absent any consensus for your changes.  The burden is on you to gain that consensus for such dramatic changes once they are reverted.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by revisionist? The show IS presented by the current presenters, and the previous presenters and broadcaster are mentioned.  You really should give a valid reason for revert.  Simply say things that are not valid are not good reason for revert.  You should also read what WP:STATUSQUO says, try and make a good faith edit rather than reverting, i.e. read what WP:LEAD says. Please note also that WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, but WP:LEAD is the guideline for lead. You should not revert edits that complies with guidelines without good reason, and you should not give spurious reason for revert (for example, no information was changed in the infobox). Hzh (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will rejoin the discussion when you a) abide by the practice of discussing the issue not the editor and; b) actually discuss instead of giving orders, as is your usual habit. In the interim, you might want to see how a similar change of hosts was handled at Top Gear (2002 TV series) and note the length of the lede. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * First, you don't use other pages as examples, you use the guidelines (this is to stop incorrect practice being propagated). The Top Gear example actually does not actually support you, since the original presenters are mentioned in the second paragraph, which is what I did here where all the changes are mentioned in the second paragraph in a chronological manner.  Note also that the Top Gear lead is a summary of the content of the History section, while there is nothing about the show history in the main body of the article here. Second, the length of the lead is about reflecting the content of the article, you should not have a long lead simply because want to.  Third, I do insist that you present a valid argument first before you revert anything, you are misusing WP:STATUSQUO because people who ignored guidelines can use this to draw things out needlessly, and you cannot ignore guidelines simply because of an essay since there are many essays in Wikipedia, for example Revert only when necessary. Read the top of the page - Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Revert is not to be used simply you like the article the way it is, you need to show that you have a good reason to do it, which you haven't demonstrated. You cannot just backed out of a discussion without providing a satisfactory explanation of the reverts. Hzh (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: the above comment, "you might want to see how a similar change of hosts was handled at Top Gear (2002 TV series) and note the length of the lede.", please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well as WP:COMMONSENSE.  -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  13:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hzh's version of the article. p  b  p  21:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should details of personnel changes be moved from lead to main body of article?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should details of personnel changes of a TV show be moved from the lead to the main body of the article with only a summary in the lead?

I moved the details of personnel changes of a TV show to the main body of text in the article -, so that it only gives a concise summary of personnel changes in the lead as summary is the recommendation per WP:LEAD. However another editor objected and wanted a consensus, hence the request for comment. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep in lead - Hosting/judging changes are major points per WP:TVLEAD, and the particular circumstances around how and why the hosts and judges changed dramatically was very notable and widely covered in RS. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it isn't made clear, it isn't about not mentioning changes in presenters and judges or the circumstances surrounding it, it is about doing it in a concise way per WP:TVLEAD. At the moment it is a blow-by-blow account which is more appropriate in the main body of the article. I'll change to make it clearer above. Hzh (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Having a look at your edit and what is currently there, I don't have a problem with either version. I don't think the current lead is too long or problematic. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the lead should be a summary of the main body per WP:LEAD, at the moment there is little about it in the main body of text, hence the suggestion to move the details but keeping only the main points in the lead. Hzh (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. Given the lack of detail in the body, it should be just summarised in the lead. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Summary only in lead per policy on content the lead. There's too much there now as it is, and because the nature of television is frequent change, if it stays as it is now, the likelihood it's only going to get more overrun with the over-detail is high.  The guideline of regarding being concise has been overlooked here.  See  at WP:Writing better articles.   -- ψ λ   ●  ✉  01:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Summary: That's just how you write a lead. p  b  p  11:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Summary only obiously. Let's not make a month-long lengthy discussion about this. Dr.Margi had a stray interpretation of wiki policies. We don't need ten more people in here, the majority of whom will confirm summary only. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, DrMargi doesn't. Hzh misrepresents the issue at hand, as I noted below.  Let's avoid drama mongering and vague personal insults.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Summary only per the others. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Summary only. The few times I've encountered the alternative it's been a bewildering "WhoTF are all these people why are they being fire-hosed at me?" experience. Not reader-friendly.  We really have no idea why any particular reader is at a particular TV show article, but we can be pretty sure it is not usually for a rapid-fire rundown who replaced whom and when.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments
More than slightly misses the point of the original issue. It's not the what, it's the how and how much. It hardly requires an RfC, especially given there's been no meaningful discussion thus far, just some giving of orders and making the issue about editors. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  07:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that you have specifically stated your refusal to continue the discussion (see section on "Article lead" above), what you saying now is odd. Although this is not the appropriate place to discuss an editor's behaviour, the purpose of RfC started here is precisely not to allow the process of editing being hampered by a single editor. I waited a week for your response, but none was forthcoming, then you reverted an edit demanding discussion -, yet again none was forthcoming. Such behaviour will be dealt with in the appropriate venue when the time comes, but we would like to the process of editing to continue without it being disrupted waiting for you to decide when you want to rejoin the discussion (which you can do above by supporting your case with the appropriate guideline and policy). Hzh (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason there's been no meaningful discussion is that YOU have just reverted, reverted, reverted and name-called, name-called, name-called, rather than providing concrete reasons for your edit. Your ratio of reverts to talk page edits frankly appalls me.  p  b  p  21:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elimination table example
Colour key:
 * Baker was the series winner
 * Baker was the series runner-up
 * Baker got through to the next round
 * Baker was the Star Baker
 * Baker was eliminated
 * Baker was one of the judges' favourite bakers that week, but did not win star baker
 * Baker was one of the judges' least favourite bakers that week, but was not eliminated

 The Doctor      ALL 13!! 15:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Unsigned, and what's the point? If you want to change the color scheme, discuss and gain consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the the edit war that would have continued in regard to this issue. After consideration, I do believe that the colour scheme should stay as it currently is apart from one small change of that the yellow should be replaced with gold and the limegreen be replaced with silver. I think that the gold and silver represents the positions of winner and runner-up better than what it currently is. Aside from the colour issue, I do think that their should be a heading under the table which states notes rather than them just being there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13thDoctor93 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for the "Olympic" colors. They're fine as they are.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

These suggested colors and the existing colors in the article fail to follow the basics of WP:COLOR because they rely on color only. Color should never be used alone and should always be used in combination with another shape or texture so color-blind or blind users can make sense of it. The simplest solution would be to ensure that the Winner is at least also marked in Bold. -- 109.78.247.233 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Channel Four
In the first paragraph, when this article says the current presenters are Sandi Toksvig and Noel Fielding and the current judges are Paul Hollywood and Pru Leith, it could be mentioned that these people began to present and to be judges on the show when the programme began airing on Channel Four. Vorbee (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Most recent series should replace current series
This article is headed by a tag saying "For the current series, see The Great British Bake Off (series 9). Since we have now had the final of this programme on October 30 2018, this should now be replaced with "For the most recent series". Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

location?
Where are these filmed?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Welford Park. --  AxG /  ✉  22:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hosting Dates
I keep adding the host/judges dates to match that of the producers (2010-2016), (2017-) etc. Can this be added? I'm not sure why they keep getting removed. JorjLim (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because we don’t include that level of detail in the infobox. It’s in narrative. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  11:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adaptation table
At a moment somebody from the USA has to individually read about 12 small paragraphs but they can be simplified to 1 line per series relabelling. I get it is long standing information (some about 6-7 years old). I will except making 2 small lists to simplify it and or moving Netflix content to international broadcasts with a note in or around the series overview about series names being relabelled. Here is what I suggest: “

'''PBS Beginning in 2014, the US broadcaster PBS aired the show under the name The Great British Baking Show, due to the fact that Bake-Off is a registered trademark by Pillsbury. PBS had to relabel each series to accommodate for starting at 2014 series – 5th overall and 1st BBC One UK broadcast series. PBS subsequently lost current airing rights to the show when it moved to Channel 4 over in the UK in 2017. Here is how PBS had relabelled the show:
 * 2014 series as season 1 in Winter 2014–2015
 * 2013 series as season 2 in Fall (Autumn) 2015
 * 2015 series as season 3 in Summer 2016
 * 2016 series as season 4 in Summer 2017
 * 2012 series as season 5 in 2018
 * 2011 series as season 6 in 2019

'''Netflix After PBS lost current airing rights, Netflix took over. Netflix kept the renumberings of seasons 1-4 that PBS used but called them collections. Netflix launched the 2012 series as The Great British Baking Show: The Beginnings then continued relabelling with the 2017 series being collection 5 and every collection being numbered, henceforth, 3 off the overall total count of the UK series.

“

In the last discussion we did talk about making series headers into channel eras (I did jump ahead I admit). Can we do series by decade when there is atleast 2 in this decade because this show is ideal being first started airing in 2010.-editedChocolateediter (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have discussion open and haven’t seen replies from you so it sounds like you are picking on me to discuss then leaving me to twiddle my thumbs and wait while you don’t reply I am sick of this. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have any strong feeling about broadcasts in other countries, but some of your edits have got nothing to do with this discussion, and should be restored to the original state. Specifically, you edits on the Format section is not consistent with recommended writing style for Wikipedia - you should avoid having so many short paragraph per WP:PARAGRAPH.  Hzh (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a sizeable number of MOS errors in these edits, not just in the infobox and pointless "era" edits. These changes are becoming increasingly disruptive. The Netflix info is where it is to clarify the dofference in series ordering and prevent endless erroneous edits, thus consensus to leave it there.


 * Try to recognize that editors don't edit to your timeline. I'm on the US Pacific coast so we have an eight-hour time difference.  You need to be patient and work with other editors.  You're displaying increasing ownership of the article, which doesn't make collaboration any easier.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  02:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have slept on it and I am happy with leaving the article by and large by its self from now on. I know I over paragraph sorry being on a phone makes paragraphs look really long in the edit when they are about two or three lines elsewhere. Netflix information is current so I see why it shouldn’t be hidden away in International. I know I accidentally left infobox with presenters the other way round (still prefer no and decrease in spaces but hey ho). Chocolateediter (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Broadcast Table
I just want to shrink and simplify this page because it gets long winded. It isn’t a narrative it is a flow of an article about a TV show. The flow is all over the place in this article. If a person wants to know information they get it fastest in a table. When you reverted the article you re-add around 850 bytes if I shrank it further and neatly removed duplicate information it would shave off some mbytes. In a world of phones a table goes a long way. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But your not. You're adding a big table that adds content already covered in narrative.  WP policy is that tables are only used to clarify information that can't clearly be presented in narrative form.  That's not the case here.  Moreover, the article remains at its stable (long-term) version until you gain consensus for these table changes.  And my being an American is irrelevant; the show is shown here on Netflix, and editing is open to ALL editors, not just Brits.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just put all the information in one table. There isn't a lot of extra information to require two tables. The table you made is also ugly, and having locations for series 1 distorts the table. The time slot column of the old table is unnecessary and can be removed, and the number of contestants isn't that interesting either to warrant a column. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hadn’t updated pages silly me. I see what you mean about series 1 on the table, if it gets through discussion, I’ll make it a list. Contestants bit is a long winded paragraph and bounces about due to it changing as per series. What isn’t interesting to Hzh isn’t necessarily interesting to others atleast you won’t need to scroll past it all the time when in a table. Sorry about American comment drmargi. The lead is too long and some can move out into article. Most sections are the same just table it up and link it out I mean if somebody wants to read critics section they would need to go scroll past 50 summaries if they was 50 series of GBBO. As for PBS and Netflix add a international broadcasts section like other tv shows do. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please keep tagging me in when you reply so I can keep in loop. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is fine as it is, appropriate for an article of this size per MOS:LEADLENGTH (2 to 3 paragraph for article with 15,000–30,000 characters). The section on individual series is OK for now if a bit repetitious, in the future (say in a few years' time when there are too many subsections), perhaps merge some of the subsections into broader periods (e.g. Series 1 to 4 for BBC2 broadcast, series 5 to 7 for BBC1, series 8 onwards for Channel 4). I think that the judges and presenters can be given in the same table now as shown below with some changes. If you want to give the locations, I think use "various" for series 1 and add a note on the locations rather listing them in the table, it makes it looks neater.

The dates can also be broken into 2 lines to shorten the width of that column (personally I think the broadcast dates are unnecessary). Time of broadcast can be placed in the channel column if you want that (again, I think it is also unnecessary). This will make sure that the table doesn't get too wide if you add additional columns. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I think do you like it. If so can we on move to my other edit I made last night ==format== @Hzh Chocolateediter (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Chocolateediter (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Location dead links will be fixed it was yours and an old one of mine I worked off Welford Valentines Mansion Chocolateediter (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps move the channels to the second column, and ratings to the last (ratings are usually given in the last column in TV tables). Judges and presenter should be before the winners and runners-up. See if you can unbold the number of episodes. Welford Park article is there. Hzh (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright I will do it for cohesion. Er I’ll test. I know I missed Park off for that text table edit does. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Just grouped it for broadcast stuff and people. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) – Location varies for each episode: Cotswolds (premiere), Scone Palace (2nd), Sandwich (3rd), Bakewell (4th), Mousehole (5th), Fulham Palace (finale)

Here you go. I do still want to know if format edit a go and is broadcast & personnel changes (except references) still needs to be the size it is and can be reduced. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me, but I made some changes to the note. Perhaps wait for a day or so to see if anyone has any objection to it before changing it. Hzh (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm now wondering if using two columns instead of the one for the first column would be better? I'm not decided which is better, but that can be changed later. Hzh (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say two columns are best maybe series colspan with # and amount/count/episodes (count shorter but episode is less vague). Chocolateediter (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

– Location varies for each episode: Cotswolds (premiere), Scone Palace (2nd), Sandwich (3rd), Bakewell (4th), Mousehole (5th), Fulham Palace (finale) – Original average UK viewership, 1:1,000,000.
 * }

My final version, note series years not # due to announcement for winner is varied but often uses somewhere along the line of "and the winner of the Great British Bake Off ‘year’ is ..." not the number. Credits say “presented by”. Added viewer note to shrink its box.– edited Chocolateediter (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no preference one way or another, but someone else may prefer number 1 to 11, so you can try it and see if anyone objects. I don't think the note on audience figure is necessary, just add (million) to the top of the column. I should also mention that when a name occupies multiple rows, it looks odd not to center it, for example channel name and judges names. so "style="text-align:center;" may be necessary. Hzh (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Where in this discussion is Series overview mentioned, and what policy- or guideline-based reason is there to not use the WP:TV and MOS:TV standard? -- / Alex /21  15:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also in favor of using the standard template. I'll add that I'd go with Alex's version with a slight adjustment of placing the columns of Judges, Presented and Locations, after the Originally aired columns. --Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a standard standard overview table because it contains more information than the standard one, whereas the standard one is more limited. You'd find different individually-tailored overview table for reality and competition shows, in fact, all the reality and competition TV articles I've seen don't use the standard one because they needed to add a variety of different information depending on the show. Here the broadcast dates are combined into a single column to make space for the extra columns. That said, what appears in the article now isn't exactly what was discussed (for example, the column for viewing figures is at the end in the discussion), and your attempt don't look that different to be objectionable, so I think it is OK if you want to use your version. However, I see no point in the blocks of colour in the first column, why it is done for the MOS I have no idea other than making it appear more colourful (here the winner column is highlighted, which I think is justified). Hzh (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure it is. It's an overview with episodes, dates, networks and information. There's no difference, other than the order, and everything included in the raw wikicode table can also be included in the templated version, as seen by my edit. This table seems to work perfectly for List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2010–present), another reality series. However, I'm still seeing no policy- or guideline-based reason is there to not use the WP:TV and MOS:TV standard, and we only differ from this version if there's a very specific reason. I do agree with the colour not being necessary, and I've debated implementing code into the template to remove them when not necessary; I'll restore the templated version and update the template as needed. Cheers. -- / Alex /21  23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the colours and updated the template to not show the colour cells for a case like this. -- / Alex /21  23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks OK, although the episode column is too wide, can be made smaller. I did explain why it differed from the standard - the extra columns made the table too wide.  In some screens you can't see the whole table if it is too wide (for example, I can't see the whole table of the Big Brother one in one of my screens, and in this article, the rating numbers get cut off). I have actually tried to make tables so that they can be scrolled sideway in other articles before, but someone always go and remove the formatting because they think it is unnecessary.   In this case, the only significant difference here is using one vs two columns for the dates, all the information is there, so there isn't a lot to be gained by using two columns instead of one. Hzh (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it too wide? It fits the header "Episodes", so it's at the narrowest width it can be; the same width can be seen in the first table in this section. The previous table used the header "Weeks", but that is not the correct terminology for an episodic series. Realistically, the dates could be merged into one column if there was consensus to, as long as it follows MOS:DATERANGE by including the year. As for the scrolling, can you provide an example where such formatting has been removed as "unnecessary"? I'd be interested in seeing their reasoning, and whether I can implement it directly into the template, as I did the hiding of the colours. -- / Alex /21  05:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "episodes" can be abbreviated to "ep." or similar to make it smaller. For some reasons, the table would not scroll sideway on some screens if it is too big (on mobile devices it appears to scroll, but not in some laptops and maybe computers with lower screen resolutions), so the table can get cut off. You can use WP:CSS formatting to change it, for example: "Insert table here", but I don't think it is a good idea to add that for general use in a template since most tables don't need it.  Hzh (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a standard for abbreviating it? We should only be abbreviating content if there's an absolutely necessity for it. And being proficient in CSS, I'd know how to go about it, but I'm still curious to see the example where such formatting was removed as "unnecessary" by another editor, and if they discussed it. I also worked out that concerning the dates, they could be combined by using y and start and end dates. -- / Alex /21  12:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment the last column is truncated, so you can't read it properly in some screens. Whether you think that makes it absolutely necessary is up to you, but I think a table that get cut-off midway is the same as not having the unseen information (I can't see many columns in the Big Brother example you gave). The point is that there is nothing to gain from sticking strictly to a fixed table, you should always allow for changes to suit a particular article. The last time I tried to make something scrollable is for the graphs in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, someone undid a few times, and I didn't care enough about it to argue, so it is left as it is (and I did not bother updating the graphs for information that can't be seen by some, as I said, information that cannot be seen is the same as not having the information). Hzh (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cutting six letters out won't fix that issue. There is plenty to gain from sticking to a standardized template that's used across thousands of articles, and there's nothing to gain to add support into the template for a single article. To fix the width issue, however, I've merged the date columns. -- / Alex /21  13:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Years in infobox
The hosts' years of tenure should be in the infobox, as the directors' are. It just makes it much more clear, as right now it loks a bit liek the show has loads of hosts. Either way, there should be consistency. Don't put any years in the infobox, or put them for anyone. There's no guidinace about this in MOS:infobox. –DMartin 05:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to invite to comment, as they seemd to have an opinion on the subject.  –DMartin  05:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is mentioned in the MOS for television MOS:TV, but Template:Infobox television specifies that presenters, cast, judges and narrators should not have years or seasons added. It doesn't say anything about producers and directors, so the difference is inherent in the guideline for the infobox. I don't know why the difference, but perhaps you can check the talk page of the template to see if that has been discussed, and raise the issue there if not. Even if it is a topic that has been discussed before, you can still raise the topic there again if you feel strongly about it. It's not something we can deal with here since it involves the template guidelines. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the source of the guidance on the dates, Hzh. They've been removed consistently over the years and changes of hosts. DMartin, you may want to raise the issue on the template talk page and gain consensus to include them.  Their omission doesnt make much sense at first blush, and an argument could certainly be made to be consistent about including these dates.  Good luck! -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)