Talk:Superstars (British TV programme)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats going on below shot in the Alan Baxter photo? Or shouldn't we ask?

Fair use rationale for Image:Superstars - Baxter.gif[edit]

Image:Superstars - Baxter.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Spelling[edit]

This article should use US spelling. The competition was started there and the first edit where there was a clear choice of spelling variety used US spelling. [1]--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology[edit]

According to Vine, he was one of the people who concocted a version of the format in 1975. That would be two years after the show began on the BBC. Well, a year and a bit. The point is, 1975 is clearly wrong, but I have no idea what the date actually should be. Help! --79.71.249.173 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of dates, I think the sentence should be removed unless there is some evidence that the Vine et al. proposal led to the BBC version of the competition.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Vine makes a claim for devising the idea in 1972 in both the ESPN programme mentioned, and in a BBC retrospective DVD. I will add references to the article throughout.Mwmonk (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Edition[edit]

It feels like the 2009 edition section has enough information in it that it should be made a page of its own, but I'm not sure how to do it. Can anyone help? Shymian (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It already has its own article. I removed most of the duplicated info and linked to the 2009 version.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated/Rewritten Article 2011[edit]

Hi, I intend to update the article to rewrite the British, European, International and World versions of this show sections. I also intend to add separate articles for more detailed information about each year of the competition in these territories from 1973 to 1985.Mwmonk (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and usage of Association Football or 'soccer'[edit]

There have been a number of changes made that call Association Football 'soccer', which is a slang term not in keeping with the terminology used for the sport in every country it is played in except the USA and Canada, where it is rapidly changing anyway. I propose - as this article clearly covers the British, European and World versions of the show in more detail that it does the US version - that we use the accepted terminology when referring to the sport so as not to cause confusion. In the USA section I fully understand the correct US terminology being used. I guess it all boils down to formal and informal English, and 'soccer' is clearly informal and not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. To counter this I intend to change back to Association Football.

Similarly I propose that US spellings be used in the US version section, and British English used in the other areas. If that is not acceptable, then the US section can always be spun off into its own article. Mwmonk (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says we should use one variety of English in an article. See WP:CONSISTENCY. By MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN this article should use American English.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we would use American English? The article is predominately based in the British, European and World editions, all of which used normal English. If the US section was expanded or spun-off, fine. Mwmonk (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After much thought I've decided to revert back to the use of Association Football. We are calling US Gridiron Football 'Amercian Football' in the same section, and the US section calls Association Football 'Football (Soccer)', so using 'Soccer' here seems totally out of place. I don't understand your rationale for only using American English spellings here at all - the article is 90% about the other versions.Mwmonk (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Manual of Style explains how to determine the appropriate variety of English for an article.
Superstars has strong ties to the United States. It was started in the United States by Americans. A majority of the events were produced for American networks and involved American athletes. By MOS:TIES we should use American English.
The article is long enough that it could be divided by creating a new article for the British and European versions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a silly argument. The article is clearly about all the different versions and the US element is only a very small part of it. The article started being 100% about the British and European versions, the infobox is about the British and European versions, as is the logo displayed. The vast amount of information provided is about the various European versions and the term 'soccer' is used only in a minority of instances. By the MOS we should use British English. MOS:TIES could be argued to suggest this also - Superstars has huge ties to the UK and Europe, with all the global shows from 1980 to 1985 made by European production companies, and the only editions since 2000 being made by the BBC, including last year. Searching for the show online generates information about the British version first and foremost, and the US only in the minority. Even the argument about who had the idea first, Dick Button or the BBC, is debatable - as the article states the BBC team claim that they were only held up by internal managerial bureaucracy from producing the show first. By your reasoning we would have to refer to Kevin Keegan as a 'soccer player' when discussing his bike crash in 1976!
So, let's agree to disagree and keep to the status quo - US English in the US section and British English for all the rest of the article. I will probably create separate articles for the UK, European/International, US and World editions over the summer, so whoever takes over the US article can refer to Brian Budd however they want there! Thanks for your input into this article. I'm proud that since we started to make this article detailed it has become the top search item on Google for the show and has been featured in UK press reports. It is a truly global show, and it clearly doesn't belong to any one culture. Mwmonk (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Your are responsible for most of the development of this article in the last two years.
The Superstars competition was popular in several countries, but we need to decide which one it is most closely associated with to determine which variety of English to use. The article's coverage of the British competitions is more thorough than it's coverage of the US competitions, but that isn't at issue. The Manual of Style considers the ties that the topic has to a country, not how much content in the current version of the article is related to a country. The topic of this article is the competition started in the US and the spin-offs in other countries.
  • You are incorrect about "the only editions since 2000 being made by the BBC." There were U.S. produced competitions from 2000 to 2003 and in 2009.
  • I am also skeptical about your claim that "the global shows from 1980 to 1985 (were) made by European production companies." What is your source for that information?
  • What search did you use to find "information about the British version first and foremost, and the US only in the minority"?
Since you intend to divide this article into separate articles for the UK and European/International version, let's keep British spelling in the British and European section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New US Version article[edit]

I have created a new article to cater for the US/North American version of the show. As the show has now not been broadcast in the US for more than 10 years and no network has new episodes planned it would appear the show is effectively mothballed there.

I intend to continue adding to the UK, European and International/World editions of the show on this page.Mwmonk (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the removal much of the information regarding the US competition from this article. Your statement that the competition "has now not been broadcast in the US for more than 10 years" is incorrect, as I explained above on June 25th.
If you would you would like to create a separate article for UK and European competitions, I would support that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no further discussion I will undo these changes.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your issue is here. First you seem to want the US version to have more precedence and now you don't. Establishing a US page that gives it a life of its own while allowing this article about the current editions to exist side-by-side is surely beneficial!

The US show needs to have its own page, as all the editions do eventually. This article started as a page for the British and European versions, and no-one has altered the US version (apart from me) for years, so while this page is still attracting big interest from the UK and Europe it needs to be maintained. Eventually we need separate articles for each version of the show, I agree. You are welcome to start a Canadian article or any other.

There are no plans to broadcast a US version - the last official US contest following the traditional format was in 2002/3. Since then there was a half-hearted 'celebrity' bastardisation which lasted one series, was then cancelled and did not follow the Superstars format. Yes the producers used the trademarks, but it was hardly a serious athletic contest in the same way the UK and Swedish programmes continue to be. I have emailed the current US copyright holders to ascertain their current and future plans, but have so far heard nothing back.

More than this, I don't understand why you seem set to change EVERYTHING I add to this article here? What is your agenda? It really seems like some kind of advanced trolling to me! If you want to make positive contributions to this article then please do so. But you're not, you just nitpicking, arguing about irritating things that will confuse the vast amount of readers of this article, and have so far added nothing that will help this move along. Your narrow focus on the editions of the show filmed in the US and Canada more than 30 years ago now do not help this article move forward. In fact, if this carries on it will kill the article.

Wikipedia and this article needs you to devote your energies to adding new content to the North American sections that you seem to care about a lot - they are massively incomplete. You are from Canada, yet there is no mention of the fact that the show ran for four years in Canada as a dedicated national edition; no list of competitors or winners. Why not use your energies to change that. If you want this article to reflect the vibrant history of the show in your geographical area more, then add to it. Create, don't destroy! Mwmonk (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you need more proof that this article lies in the purview of the UK and European editions predominantly, look at what else is on this page. Other editors have added tags putting this as an 'Important BBC' article - where are the links to US or North American tags? (I'll help you out, there are none.) During the last series of the show in the UK the page stats were showing 10000 page views a day, and stayed at more than 10 times the current number for more than a month. We are ignoring our audience if we claim anything except that this article should be aimed at the British and European shows. Please try to help us out here instead of hindering the development of the article.Mwmonk (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to move material from this article into a new article, you should get consensus before proceeding. There are Wikipedia guidelines on when and how to split an article.
Do I understand correctly that the main reason you want to split off the US portion of the article is because there has not been a US version of the competition (using the traditional format) in 10 years?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I started with the US section because its the bit that's not been updated for years, it's fairly self-contained and being separate might encourage others to expand it. I could have started with the European or the World section but I didn't. You are free to start those articles if you wish. As is any one else. Mwmonk (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's follow the proper procedure.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Redirected to dab due to evidence that there may not be a primary topic by usage; that can be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Superstars → Superstars (British TV programme) – Based on WP:PLURALPT, "Superstars" should redirect to the singular topic Superstar. The TV show does not have the pageviews or long-term significance of a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as there is also Superstars (American TV program). The British TV show isn't the primary topic for this term. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and redirect to Superstar. --Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and redirect to Superstar as a primary redirect from plural.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above and speedy close. I can't see a valid rationale for this one. -- Netoholic @ 11:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but redirect to the dab page Superstar (disambiguation). I'd say there's no primary topic AT ALL for the plural version. The safest bet would be redirecting to the dab page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but per Paintspot I'd redirect to the DAB since the TV programme gets more views (2,300) than the general meaning (1,855)[[2]] but the British TV series clearly isn't primary by PT#2 but no real objection to redirecting to the general meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to dab. Too ambiguous for a primary redirect. (I personally think there's a bit of a WP:NOTDIC problem going on here, and that the content at Superstar should probably just be merged into Celebrity) Colin M (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superstars_(British_TV_programme)&oldid=1205514920"