Talk:The Cube (British game show)

Games

The games section could get very long and confusing by the time the series ends; perhaps a better presentational method could be used (maybe a show/hide button for each prize level) -- Houghster (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Update completed using the relevant tags -- Houghster (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is going to work. How do we know that each game will always be played at the same prize level? -- Smjg (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think the current presentational method should be fine for the first series judging by the fact that about 60 games have been created - none of the games should be repeated anyway if this is the case. I guess we will have to think of another solution if and/or when we come across the problem. -- Houghster (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems a rather inefficient way of doing it – if (as it appears) half the point is that the contestant has never seen the game before, then they'll have to think up 60 more games for series 2. As far as I was told, The Crystal Maze achieved this by filming the whole series before it was televised, and I thought maybe The Cube does the same.

Moreover, what happens to games that were never played because the contestant walked away with the money at that point? It would be very silly if these just go to waste. Still, when/if such a game is actually played, under the current format it could be re-filed under the level it's played at.

Something else that would be nice to find out: Does a simplify apply to only one attempt at the game, or to every subsequent attempt until that game is passed? So far, the only times it's been used, the contestant has completed the game at that attempt. Maybe we just need to wait and see.... -- Smjg (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the tags are not used to show/hide sections then the list of games at each prize level will be extremely long and hard to read. If you can think a better prestentational method which you think is not 'inefficient' by all means suggest it. We don't even know if ITV will commision the show for a second series but, if they do, we could perhaps create a new section for games featured in the next series, or alternatively create an entirely new page with a complete list of games played -- Houghster (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the entire series is filmed several months before the first episode is televised, just like The Crystal Maze. I am also certain that the simplify remains in place until the game is completed by the contestants, no matter how many times it takes. Houghster (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By "inefficient" I was referring to the alleged policy of playing each game only once, not to the presentation here of the game data. -- Smjg (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cylinder has now been played twice - once at the £2,000 prize level and again at the £100,000 level. I cannot think of any other solution except for the message another user has already added: "This game has also been shown, but not attempted, at the £100,000 level" -- Houghster (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a list of every single game played is necessary in an encyclopaedia article. We should just give a few examples instead. --89.241.146.124 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine how it is at the moment. Lets leave it for at least the end of the second series. Nathanl1192 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, some of these games haven't been seen on the show, and some of them look, well, obviously fake. Here's the list I know aren't on the show:

[£1k] Aquatica, Colours, Identification, Stroke

[£2k] Ball Rush, Connection, Limbo, Spinner

[£10k] Retrace

[£20k] Aquamaze (seriously, what), Collapse, Indication

[£50k] Vibration

[£100k] Mousetrap

109.150.7.51 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Time-slice

It would appear that the words “time-slice” are a trade mark and it would be better if this was called "Camera Freeze". If this could be altered by someone that would be great. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.35.42 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would "Camera Freeze" be capitalised if it were not a trademark as well? -- Smjg (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can trademarked words be used in articles? The help article makes no mention that you cannot; using 'game freeze' just doesn't give the same factual accuracy as 'time-slice' filming technique -- Houghster (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That page is about how to format trademarks, and has nothing to do with when and when not to use them. This suggests that either Wikipedia has no rule on the latter, or it's talked about on a different page (in which case it should be linked to from that page). But IMO the rule ought to be to use the trademark only if it is the real thing being talked about. Though maybe an exception can be made for certain trademarks that are well and truly genericised.... -- Smjg (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Size of the cube

by completing challenges from within a 4x4x4 metre Perspex cube

That gives the cube's size as 64 metres. It clearly isn't 64 metres in any direction. If the intent was to state that it's 4 metres along each side, the unit needs to be applied individually to every mention of the number. Though it doesn't need to written as "metre" in full three times - "4m × 4m × 4m" would be adequate.

But what's the source for the size of the cube anyway? Has somebody here actually measured it? And for what it's made of exactly? — Smjg (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

International Versions - Games

Do all these international games exist? I was considering putting them in the same format as the UK games but we obviously don't have all he required information. Some don't look too real to me but I can't delete them as I'm not 100% sure and it would be unfair to delete them. If they do exist can people add the country they have been seen in, cash level, simplify rules. I don't believe this information is not available. If this information is not supplied I think the games SHOULD be deleted as to sustain the credibility of the article.

Again more games are being constantly added with no mention of country of origin, cash level, simplify rules. Do these games exist?

• Some of those games exist. 66% of game I do not see anywhere. Full list of all games here, on a russian wiki-project. There are games which played in UK, CN and UA versions. --159.224.250.194 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• If you want watch a demonstration of those games, send me a message on my YouTube channel. --DimaSDA (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this article needs to remove all games with symbol «?» (on this page) --DimaSDA (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revisions.

Hello all. A few of us have put a lot of work into this article over the years and for some reason, recently, 2 users have been undoing our work by removing information because it is "unsourced". These users have just started, for whatever reason to do this and I believe it to be both petty and delibrate vandalism. I would ask that fellow regular users of this page keep a eye out for it and if the users who do keep doing this continue, they will be reported and we will let someone impartial decide. The artice is and always has been fine. PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE. Cassiuschrome (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly not "petty and deliberate vandalism". Dougal18 and Bentvfan54321 are both experienced editors who are taking out the content because it fails guideline policies outlined in WP:NOTSTATS (which mentions articles should not be "Excessive listings of statistics.") and WP:TRIVIA (of note, the "Notable Events" section has a trivia temple tagged under it since October 2014, so you can't say nobody's had a problem with the article until now). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Andromedabluesphere440, for your explanation to Cassiuschrome. Cassiuschrome, first off, it's an "article", not an "artice". Second, to call my edits "vandalism" is absurd. Take a look at the links we have provided and you will see that they state that this information is not suitable for the article. Third, we also haven't been removing it because it is "Unsourced". We've been removing it because the information is an excessive listing of statistics that fall under NOTSTATS and TRIVIA. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Per WP:3RR, I myself cannot revert the article back to the correct form, so I'd also request that someone else do that. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Cassiuschrome, please read NOTSTATS and TRIVIA if you haven't already done so. "With respect, I don't need a valid keep argument." is not sufficient enough reasoning to keep the section. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cube (game show)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Review

Overall Comments

• A lack of references in sections “Format, Prize Money, Aides, Games, Celebrity Specials, Defeated Contestants, Awards, Filming Locations, & Top Prize Winners” That's 9 sections without any references.
• Sections such as the opening paragraph, filming & Merchandise (preferably should be called Merchandising) could do with a bit more references as 2 for each of those is a bit too little.
• Although referenced well the reception section could be expanded more by getting more critics opinions off more topics such as the revamp.
• Too much of the article is completely trivia mainly the games section. That would only work if it obtained its own article, but for the main show article that is too trivial and does not really serve as an encyclopedic point of view.

Infobox

Good Infobox

Opening Paragraph

• Wording There really is no need to say “The Cube is a triple BAFTA Award–winning British game show” as the first sentence “The Cube is a British game show” is fine. You are not trying to sell or advertise the show. Besides that statement is not even referenced.
• No need to say the sizes of the cube. That might be able to go into a production or show background section but not the opening paragraph.

Format

• No Reference Like the majority of this article this section does not have a single reference. It is all self-research.

Filming

• Well referenced at the start The start contains good sources but that is only the start unfortunately. Minor grammatical errors such as “he or she” could be change to “they”. Other than that good section.

Transmission

• Well Presented The table was designed correctly no code errors which makes it easy to read.
• Only 1 Reference 1 reference in the whole 9 season grid is quite poor. Try to get sources on air dates and number of episodes.

Prize Money

• Not Significant Enough Does not seem significant enough to carry its own section. The only key part is the top prize £250,000, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph. The rest is unnecessary.

Aides

• Too Trivia Theses can get a mention in the format section but giving them a whole section is too trivial and it is unreferenced.

Games

• Too Trivia The whole games section is way too trivial See WP:IINFO. This may work on its own article, but its too much for the main one.
• Unreferenced The section does not have 1 reference in it.

Celebrity Special

• Unreferenced I know I have been saying it a lot but it applies here too. There is no reference in this section either.
• Games details There is no need for the game details in the Text Santa part for the same reason I have explained in the game section of the review.

International Version

• Grid well presented and referenced
• Lack of references in other parts
• Games section should not be included per reasons explained above

Top Prize Winners

Well Presented No Reference

Merchandise

Lack of Reference Preferably call the section Merchandising For app just mention when and on what no need to mention contents

Overall Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A.Yes the majority of the article is well written. Few minor grammar errors but nothing major

   B. No the layout includes many trivial sections. The opening paragraph needs a bit of work on.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. No very few references. In Wikipedia: FNNR

   B. There are few references but the few ones are to reliable sources.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic

   B. No it goes into irrelevant trivia driving away from the main facts.

4. Is it neutral?

   Gives main information

5. Is it stable?

   No, many significant recent changes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged

   B. Images are relevant to the topic

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately this has to fail mainly because such a significant amount of trivial info and unsourced content. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Games

Why are any of the games listed in either of the Games sections notable for inclusion? Per WP:IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, I don't think any of it should be included (large portions also seem to be original research); there are no sources associated with any of it and no evidence that any of the games have been significantly commented on by any reviewers or secondary references. If no-one objects within a week, I'll boldly remove all of the obstacle content. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, that's why I mentioned it in my GA review. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In the USA, we have Minute to Win It. Per this, I'd say the list of games has got to go. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the sections in question. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source where the games can be listed though? I know Minute to Win It has the game but I can't seem to find one for The Cube. SteveHNo96 (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if there was a source, not everything that can be sourced should be mentioned. There was over 100,000 bytes of information on the games; that's clearly giving a large amount of undue weight to a non-notable list. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Steve is just looking for a website where he can read about all of the games in The Cube, now that the information has been yanked from here – be it an official site or a fan site that is still being actively maintained. I would be interested in finding such a website as well. Furthermore, whether the information is suitable for inclusion on WP has nothing to do with whether a link to the information would be suitable for inclusion on WP. — Smjg (talk)

Issues

JohnGormleyJG recently tagged the article with {{BLP sources}}, {{autobiography}} and {{overcoverage}} (Special:Diff/672780237).

With the {{BLP sources}} tag, I certainly agree that the article could do with more sources—especially in places like the filming and merchandise sections—but what makes this article a BLP? The subject isn't a living person (it's a game show) and it barely talks about Phillip Schofield or anyone else related to the show; I was not under the impression that a BLP is any article that so much as mentions someone alive. I would have used {{refimprove}} instead.

I boldly removed the {{autobiography}} tag (Special:Diff/672793311), but was reverted on the grounds that "eg the first line ''The Cube is a triple BAFTA Award–winning British game show'' not maintaining a neutral point of view. This occurs several times". The template {{autobiography}} states "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject." I do not believe this is true. Which substantial contributors are related to the game show / ITV? I can't see any evidence that anyone is. I think the more appropriate tag would be {{Advert}} or {{POV}}, but even then I can't see the actual problem? Tag-bombing does not help anyone; I can't see which part of the article is biased. Mentioning that the show has won an award is not biased.

Finally, {{overcoverage}} is intended for use on articles with very region-specific content (e.g. if capital punishment discussed only American laws relating to it). I can only assume this must refer to Britain. But the subject matter is British; how can anyone expect the article to discuss any other countries in depth when they are irrelevant? (If the international versions of The Cube are notable, they need their own articles, not more content on a page specifically about the British game show.)

I can't see that any one of these three tags are being used correctly and while the first two seem to be based on some kind of identifiable issue, I think the article is good enough to not warrant a series of annoying orange tags at the top. If there are minor issues, fix them. The only tags I would consider adding to the article are {{refimprove}} and {{inadequate lead}}, as the lead does not discuss every section with appropriate depth but instead gives undue weight to minor concepts like "It is based on the idea that even straightforward tasks become extremely challenging when confined and put under pressure in front of a large live studio audience. Once inside, contestants can feel both claustrophobic and disorientated.", which are not even repeated in the article's body. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @Bilorv: reading that I notied I made some mistakes so sorry for that. But according to WP:MOSINTRO, it does say “but not by [avoid] using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"” These are peacock terms. That is then what creates bias in the article and not maintaining a neutral point of view. Thanks for your input and help as well. Thankyou -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. There's a difference between "award-winning" and "won award X"; I can't find any of the other terms you mention (or anything similar) in the article. Do you still think any of the tags are necessary? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I don't have a strong preference over whether or not it is included. The main thing that bugged me was the references. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've replaced the tags with {{refimprove}}. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seasons 6 and 7

Look at this and say why this is incorrect. Dicto dicto dicto dicto dicto (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Page name

Given that the show was only named "The Million Pound Cube" for a single series and has been reverted as per the given reference for this, I believe this page should be moved back to "The Cube (game show)" [which currently serves as a redirect to this page title], but leaving this name as a redirect. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)