Talk:The Great British Bake Off series 7

Last series on BBC
Seems a bit odd to claim that this information should only be on the show as a whole, and not for the particular series. It is relevant to this series as it is to the overall programme. Hzh (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see a note that it's the last broadcast on the BBC, but no great level of detail already covered in the main article. --Drmargi (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That it is also in the main article is not relevant. A piece of information may be appropriately included in both articles. You'd need to explain how this bit of information is not relevant to this article. Hzh (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are back to this again. You refusing to answer when asked, but using reverts as a weapon. That the edit is relevant to the article is directly specified by the edits - this is the presenters' last season (series in British usage) on the show, why would you suggest this is not relevant to this series? Hzh (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I will make a final attempt to get Drmargi to discuss the edit - there is nothing in the edit that is controversial, it is entirely appropriate to the series (season in Brit speak) as it directly refers to the presenters and the broadcaster in relation to the series. There is no reason why information relevant to the show as a whole cannot be given in article for the individual series if it is relevant to that series. Therefore no valid reason has been given for the revert, and to demand a consensus when there is no valid reason given is unreasonable. Hzh (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doesn't matter that you don't like my rationale. Consensus isn't about that.  Get consensus, and problem solved.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are reverting without any valid rationale or indeed try to answer the point I made. You are therefore not contributing to the discussion, reverting without discussing and giving reasons for the revert in the talk page is disruptive per WP:BRD (which you have done a few times already). Hzh (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can clarify something before I do something else, are you mistaking British use of "series" (which means season) for American use of "series"? I'm trying to understand if you are deliberately ignoring what's written in the text (which specifically refers to this series/season), or misunderstanding it.  Hzh (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is information about broadcaster and presenters relevant to this 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 information that this series would be the last to be broadcast on BBC and its presenters would leave be included here? Hzh (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As this is the most popular TV show on British television, there have been a great amount of coverage and controversy about this show leaving the BBC for Channel 4 and that its presenters would also leave after this series. However, an editor has been reverting all edits on this -, , , , without giving clear reason. It appears to stem from an initial misunderstanding of the British usage of "series" (meaning "season" in US terms) as may be seen from the edit summary of this diff - however despite explanations of the difference in usage, attempts to get the editor to discuss or explain the reverts have been largely unsuccessful, and now a consensus is demanded. (See above) Hence this request for comments to get some kind of consensus. Hzh (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems entirely appropriate to me to note that it is the last series/season to air on a particular broadcaster and it seems quite noteworthy to add a simple sentence stating that with a valid citation. It is not unprecidented, American Dad! (season 11), Big Brother 8 (Australia) and The Killing (season 3) are a few examples where the last broadcaster and new broadcaster are noted. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with . It's totally appropriate to note that this is the last series which will be aired on the BBC. There's been a substantial amount of media coverage of the fact in the UK, so it's verifiable and due weight.  I can't see that any reason not to include it has been given Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Some mention of it being the last series on the BBC is certainly appropriate. A fuller description of the changes to channel, presenters, and possibly to judges belongs on The Great British Bake Off. To leave this article without any mention of the elephant-in-the-room is bizarre.
 * It's only the slow-motion character of this exchange that keeps WP:3RR off the menu. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, it definitely should be mentioned in this article as well, there has been no good reason provided to leave it out. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last comment, and there has been no dissenting opinion on adding a mention about the series being the last on BBC. There is therefore a clear consensus. An editor indicates that changes to personnel may be left on the main page, and I can leave it out for the time being. If there is no objection, I will consider this issue resolved as the outcome is clear per WP:CLOSE. Unless or other editors want to add something, I will make the edit in a day or two's time. Hzh (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Relevant yes It looks like the proposed information is legitimate, informative, and valid, and editor Drmargi is wrong to keep reverting the updates. I believe the information should be mentioned, yes, after all the article covers a real world phenomena and researchers are better served if the information is provided on the article. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question - If I may ask, RfCs are usually created to resolve differences of opinion on a matter. While I have read where everyone is in agreement, what is the dissenting view. I think its germane to hear the 'cons' as well as the 'pros' to make an informed decision. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only person who had shown any objection is the one who kept reverting the edits, and she has refused so far to participate even though she is the one who demanded a consensus. The process was started because of her action, I'm not sure what else we can do if she doesn't want to explain. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone link where the dissenting editor was contacted about the RfC discussion? I know the matter is somewhat moot at this point (since the edit was already made, noting a consensus), but he neede dto be given the opportunity to sway a few of their fellow editor's views on the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The person is automatically pinged when you link the user name with (I think, I've got pinged before when someone else did it).  In any case, she has been contacted many time over her edits (see here), and she did nothing, but whenever the content of the page is edited, she reverted them within hours, which suggests that she was deliberately ignoring the requests (I usually wait 1-3 days for her response before doing anything). Hzh (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like you've dotted your 'I's' and crossed your T's'. Good job!. Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2016 (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.

First names
Please note that using first name in articles is not recommended per WP:SURNAME. We should avoid using first name because per guidelines, we do not want to give the impression that we know the contestants personally. There is some ambiguities when the show uses first names for the contestants, but it is common in many reality competition shows to use full name in tables all through the article, for example in The Voice (U.S. season 11). Hzh (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this issue is in a bit of a grey area, there does not appear to be a consistent approach in many articles, for example the difference between The Apprentice (U.S. season 1), Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X and The Voice (U.S. season 1). I think it needs clarifications, perhaps with a discussion in the talk page for Manual of Style/Television so that we can have a consistent approach on the naming of individuals in reality/competition shows. I'll do that perhaps within a week or so, in the meantime I'll change everything back to where it was before the recent edits, but do let me know if you object to any part of this proposal or have a different opinion. Hzh (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, your input would be welcome. Hzh (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)