Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Opening comments

Needs discussion of Regis Philben's shirts, the fast fingers, the call-in process, etc.

Having seen the documentary movie about Who wants to be a millionaire? I do know that only a few countries have been allowed to make any changes to the original setting, as the whole scheme has been carefully produced over several years by psychologists among others. I noticed that China (I'm not sure it was China, but it was East-Asian) had been allowed to have family watching in a separate room where they discussed the questions. In Japan the verdict came from a Japanese celebrity who clearly took his role as the executor very seriously. Then again, a show is a show. Maybe the one thing that really differs from one country to another is the amount of money a participant is able to get a hold on. Here in Norway the grand prize is 2 million Norwegian Crowners (NOK) which equals to $275,694 (USD) and 75 cents.
Do feel free to add that information to the subject page itself - at least, the bits that you are sure of! - Oliver Pereira

Thank you, I will when I've confirmed it.

What is a broad regional accent? Vera Cruz

A strong accent. From my dictionary (Collins Cobuild): "A broad accent is a strong and noticeable regional or foreign accent. EG She spoke in a broad Wiltshire accent."
What some people criticize is that Assinger, who of course could, if he wanted to, does not speak standard (Austrian) German. Many other viewers find his accent rather charming. KF 18:14 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

itd be more informative if it stated what his accent was. Vera Cruz

I don't know, most likely Carinthian, but that's really irrelevant. Although this is never said openly, I think the idea behind that criticism is that someone who speaks -- or rather sounds -- like any village idiot should not host a show which has an academic touch and should not be facing intellectuals trying to show off their knowledge. Interestingly, one of the first Austrian candidates to actually win the one million € was an unemployed manual worker who spoke in a strong Upper Austrian accent and who stated that he was watching TV all day (and night). On the other hand, there is a movement in Austria which wants to preserve and popularize regional varieties of German as this is seen as part of the Austrian cultural heritage. --KF 23:15 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Oi, Tokerboy! The official website of the programme calls it Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. Doesn't that mean that that is its official name? -- Oliver P. 18:43 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

As a piece of trivia we'll have to add the outcome of the Charles Ingram fraud trial when it becomes known (probably in the next week or two). -- Arwel 01:06 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Now that it's in, it doesn't mention whether they actually received the million pounds -- I assume not but it'd be nice to mention it explicitly. 01:13, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Have included reference to the Cole Porter song which it was named after, with fair use snippet as permitted by copyright rules. Please do not post the full song lyrics without checking copyright -- thanks. There is a link to full lyrics on external site.

--Trainspotter 11:40 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 02003.

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? should be the principle article, and all other with similer names should redirect to it. It is not a big deal but it is not quite okay to let Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? to be the principle one. --wshun

Star Trek is spelt with all caps on the show's intro - shall we move that articles as well or use standard rules of English grammar (which would favor Who Wants to be a Millionare, BTW)? --mav
Standard English practice is to capitalize all words of a title except for articles and short prepositions, such as 'a', 'the', 'to', 'of', and so on (except where these are the first word of the title, in which case they are capitalized). So I believe Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? would be the correct way of capitalizing it. Of course the show itself may or may not follow standard English practice in its promotional materials; I haven't looked. as for be, I believe that all verbs in titles should be capitalized. --Delirium 23:02 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The explanation is good enough to me. Thanks. wshun 23:08 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The show name should be used as they render it. There are enough cases in popular culture where the rules of capitalization and grammar are purposefully ignored. For example, thirtysomething and er are two other TV shows that come to mind. Daniel Quinlan 02:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Comment moved from article Can we please have a full article on the song? User:Lee M

Charles Ingram

Notice that the Charles Ingram affair took place on September 10 2001? So the next day everyone had other things on their minds. Just a terrible coincidence, of course, but I wonder if there's any tasteful way of pointing that out in the article, if it isn't blindingly obvious already...Lee M 02:03, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The edit history for 07:48, 2 May 2003 . . Tarquin (remove "(by a sad coincidence)" -- please don't drag 9-11 into this) shows that there was a reference to it before then, but really it is irrelevant -- in any case it wouldn't have become public for some time afterwards as Celador and the police would need to be sure of what had happened. -- Arwel 02:12, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You are right, the whole affair didn't leak to the Sun for several weeks after the filming so there was no concurrent reporting of the two events. Pete 10:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Also, don't forget that Ingram and his wife wrote a book called "Win A Million" and it was advertised in the press and on Amazon. This was available shortly after he "won" his prize, so he must have written it quite quickly! This book was never released.

Cole Porter song

(reference also Trainspotter's comment above) Whilst I think it is good to reference the (fabulous) Cole Porter song in the article, is the first line the right place? Its current prominent positioning makes it liable to interpretation as wikipedia making a criticism of the materialism of the show. I will move it down unless there are objections. Pete 10:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved it down a paragraph. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:52, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Are you certain that the TV show was named after that line in the song? As in, someone specifically said they chose the show's name after hearing that song (and if so, could you add more details about this to the article)? Or is it just a coincidence? Brian Kendig 21:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Similarity of theme tune to the Cole Porter song It has always struck me that the final section of the theme tune is clearly heavily related to the Cole Porter song. It has precisely the right rhythm for the words "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" (albeit sung somewhat forcefully), and the notes form a rising sequence just as in the original song, almost. Robert Hunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The 50:50 lifeline

The page says, go for a "50:50" (when the computer will randomly remove two incorrect answers and leave the right answer and one wrong answer). Is the 50:50 really random in deciding what wrong answer to leave behind? It seems to me that it usually leaves a wrong answer which the contestant has been mulling over out loud; I've never seen it leave behind an "obviously wrong" answer. I suspect that the people in the control booth get to decide which wrong answer to leave, or that this was decided when the question was written... is it truly random? Brian Kendig 20:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

In the German and Austrian shows, they insist that it is a random choice. I have never had any reason to doubt that. If, however, it were some kind of ploy used to create more suspense or whatever, it would still be okay, wouldn't it? After all, this is a game show, not real life. No one is entitled to the money.
If you feel uncomfortable with the wording, we might consider inserting an "allegedly" or a short sentence stating that "Some people doubt that ...". <KF> 20:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not the wording or whether it's okay, so much as the question of whether the choice is really supposed to be random, and if it's not then the article shouldn't say that it is. When a contestant chooses 50:50 in the American version, Regis says, "Computer, please take away two answers, leaving one wrong answer and the correct one." So I'm not certain it's really random, so I'm going to remove that one word from the article. Brian Kendig 21:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I do not have inside knowledge. However when I've watched the show (British version) I've always noticed how they never use the word random to describe 50:50. That omission always struck me as conspicious, as apparently it does you, and I've just assumed it is not random because leaving two difficult makes for a better show. Sadly I have no proof.
The programme is made by celador. You can get a copy of the rules of the show by visiting and downloading the Microsoft Word document linked there. These rules also make no specific mention of how 50/50 works. Celador do not have a single email address on their website. To find out for sure we would have to phone up.
Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Funnily enough, in the current UK series Chris Tarrant has been saying "Please take away two RANDOM wrong answers". He never used to include the 'random'. BillyH 16:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On the American network version, Regis doesn't say that the answers taken are random. However, on the American syndicated version and Super Millionaire, Meredith and Regis, respectively, do say that the answers are removed randomly. Press Start 03:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have been watching the GSN repeats of the original American broadcast version with Regis Philbin. My on-screen guide doesn't give the year for each episode, so I can't say when it occurs, but there are episodes I've seen in which Regis definitely said "randomly." I remember because it bugged me, as it never seemed random. Given how often the two remaining answers are the most plausible, my feeling always has been that the staff pre-selects the two answers (or did so for some period of time). If so, that would be one explanation why the remaining answers so often are the same ones the contestant was leaning toward.Lawikitejana 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I know for a fact, that 50/50 help leaves one correct and one PREDEFINED wrong answer. I have that knowledge from the way it works in Lithuanian (licensed) version (they also have a bunch of badly made copycats). Questions and answers are made up by researchers, who are smart people, some of them are big time winners of similar shows (happen to know one guy who was member of a team researching and making questions for British version). Watching the American version for well over the year (with Meredith) now on a daily basis, I have seen only once (that is right, ONCE), when that predefined wrong answer was worse than any of the ones removed. This would support assumption that 50/50 help is American version also is not random... just like at any other countries' version. Why they use word "random" then? Because TV show hosts are not technical people and do not care about it or do not understand implications of how misleading it is and how it gives people false hopes, that one of the two best looking choices will be removed. I am sure it may also have legal implications, but I guess we will never know what until someone actually sues them for giving false information. tabu 07:25pm, 27 Jan 2006 (EST)

Junior version in India

In India, the show had a version for kids titled "Kaun Banega Karodpati Junior". The contenstants were all kids (under 18, I think), and while the format was the same, the participants won only "points" which were converted to Rupees, to be invested in an insurance account and to be paid out to the winner only when they became adults, at the age of 18. This show was a weekly affair, airing only on Sundays on Star Plus.

I am a little hazy on the details.

Seems like we could expand on the "specials" section a bit - currently we have "Variants on the format have been tried, such as celebrities playing for charity and couples games (where both partners must agree on the answer)." That is also in the "British original format" section whereas specials have been played all over the place, as you prove. Pcb21| Pete 01:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I found some online reference to the Junior show. For one, it was called "Kaun Banega Crorepati Junior". This page has some details on how the prize was distributed to kids: and this page has information on telecast schedule:
On a related note, I don't think any of these (juniors, couples etc.) can be considered as "variants" of the original format. They are, at best, variants of only the original selection process. On Indian television, there were a number of gameshows that were truly variants of the theme - the theme being a single contestant quizzed on a number of progressively tough questions, with more and more prize money at stake.Binand

The question mark

Like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, this show appears to be properly titled without the question mark--at least in the USA. My understanding is that there's some superstition that it's bad luck to include a question mark in a title that is a question. On the web sites for both the network and syndicated versions of WWTBAM (in the USA), the question mark is not included when the full name of the show is referenced (see the External Links). I referenced the show on the Ken Jennings page (he's the recent big winner on Jeopardy!), and somebody "corrected" my lack of a question mark. Does anybody have any information that would confirm the official position of the shows' producers on the correct form? Is there any variation for other national versions? Jwolfe 09:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Celador, the creators of WWTBAM, use a question mark, so that must be a pretty definitive answer! See -- Arwel 11:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've added a comment to the USA section to reflect the lack of question mark in the US version only. Jwolfe 13:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The UK version doesn't contain a question mark on screen either, but it seems it does in print (as the Celador site shows). BillyH 18:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You know, I remember discussing the question mark with my brother one time, and he pointed out that when Regis says the name of the show, he pronounces it without a question mark (using a falling intonation), as if the title were not an interrogative sentence, but rather an adjective phrase describomg the contestant. Dansiman 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be noted that the reason why Millionaire's popularity fell in the United States was because they'd have so many celebrity tournaments? I'm not adding it until I get input. Mike H 02:00, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the show's popularity did wane at about the same time that new formats (celebrities, couples, kids etc) starting coming in. However I don't think it waned *because* these new formats were around. Contrarily, figures waned because the novelty of the concept wore off, and the producers brought in the special formats to breathe some new life into the show. This is more my opinion than anything substantive, so your mileage may vary. Pcb21| Pete 11:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it would make a good addition to list the countries in which the highest prize has been given out, and if so, how many times. I remember reading in a newspaper about a year ago that it was just US, UK, Germany, Israel and Russia where the top prize was won. --Aramgutang 11:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would be a good addition, if we can find the information. In the US there has been lots of winners (it stood at 5 some time ago). There have been at least three in the UK, but I think that includes the Major. Pcb21| Pete 11:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There was also a winner in South Africa, there have now been four in the UK, five if you count the Major, which you shouldn't. Robert Mc Cann.

Rule Changes

Can someone please add details regarding to which countries the rule changes section applies. --NeilTarrant 17:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it was confusing. I have tried to move all this info to either the "UK Version" or "US Version" sections. I hope I have got the right bits in the right places. I think people have been adding stuff without really appreciating the overall organisation of the article. Matt 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

Brasil should be deleted

I think that article about Brasil's show must be erased. This show is just similar. I think in all countries there are similar shows, for e.g. in Lithuania we have "Six zeros - million", in Latvia there is - "Bank of knowledge". So article about Brasil's show must be deleted, because Wikipedia asks to make article about "WWWTBAM?" smaller. What do you think?

Walk Away

Is the new feature really called "Walk Away?" I thought it was just called the "text game". That's what it's called on the programme, anyway. BillyH 6 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

The ITV website calls it "Walk Away".

Ok, that clears it up. Thanks. BillyH 08:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I had never heard of "walkaway" either, and I have tried to clarify the explanation. Matt 21:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC).


Something just doesn't seem right about that addition to me, but since it is known that the format, in whatever form, had previously been rejected twice before the show finally made it to air in 1998, I won't argue.

It's extremely fishy. I can't find anything about these allegations anywhere except on the one site cited, which is nothing more than a BUY THIS BOOK!! GIVE US MONEY!! teaser. This guy's claim strikes me as pretty weak even if true - he says the idea to fund a million-pound prize from premium-rate phone lines is his, but even he doesn't claim to have devised the actual format. I say it's spam and vanity-by-proxy. --Bonalaw 08:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed. If the allegations were true, it would have been a big story. There's no trace of it. -Q4 08:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 08:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Somebody added Leonard's claim again, so I've removed it again. Even if Leonard came up with the idea of funding a million-pound (or million-dollar) prize through premium-rate lines, that is a very long way from inventing the format itself. (And if he's going to claim that he invented the game structure, anybody who knows anything about the history of game shows can point to series like The $64,000 Question and Double Your Money as examples of prior art. The key distinctive element of the Millionaire format is the lifelines, which he openly admits weren't his invention.) --Q4 11:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
See 'Removed unsources libel' below for further details...


Why is this listed under Irish and Austrailian TV and not other countries? Either give it the respective catagories for all the countrys (assuming they exist, which may be why this is messed up) or only have it for those associated with the UK and US editions, where the show wnjoys principle popularity. HereToHelp 17:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

==Boom Boom, Boom Boom== This game show's backround sound effects & music was & still is annoying. Mightberight/wrong 14:00, 31 October 2005 (AST).

List of winners

I think a list of all the $0 winners, at least in the United States, would be entertaining after the list of $1,000,000 winners.

  • i agree with the $0 winners, Spencerk 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation of Walkaway/Text Game

The article says about this feature: "They [the viewers] have 30 seconds to text in what they think the correct answer is. At the end of the 30 seconds, the right answer is revealed and those who have answered correctly are texted a question back. The fastest answer texted back wins £1,000. If there is a tie for the fastest time, further questions are asked until a winner is found."

The explanation on the ITV website ( makes no mention that I can see of these supplementary questions, and I have never heard this mentioned on the show either. I have never played the text game myself; can anyone confirm that it does actually work as the article describes? Matt 21:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Do you know?

1. If anyone knows when this show is filmed (relative to when it's broadcast) that would be great. Is it sometime earlier in the same day? (I can't believe it's live.)

2. Tarrant gives the impression when he calls the phone-a-friend that is the first call they have had from the show... but since they always pick up the phone after exactly three rings I suspect maybe it isn't. Does anyone know how this works?

Matt 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

For Q2, the five friends are rung up when their contestant makes it into the hotseat, and are given various instructions: keep the phone free for the next hour or so and if it does ring, don't answer immediately, but wait three rings. (My dad was a p-a-f once!) Matthewmayer 23:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool! I inserted this into the article. Some may think it's too much information, but I think this is exactly the sort of thing we need to know! Matt 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC).
I was on the show recorded on 31st January 31st, 2001 (I didn't make it into the hotseat)- it was to be broadcast two weeks later.

The information given above is correct, but you are allowed a couple of phone-a-friends; also, you are asked to phone them up during the day from your dressing room to make sure they are OK to be phoned up, and to "act surprised" if Chris Tarrant gets through to them. As for being shown live, the only ones I know of are the ones to celebrate a multi-centenary of shows. If you want more info about the behind the scenes of the shows, let me know - DrPaulLee

It used to be filmed the day before broadcast originally I though? Not sure if this is right but the Ingram show would have been due to go out on September 11 2001 but didnt because of the 'coughing'. It probably wouldnt have been shown that night even if the coughing incident hadn't taken place. (12th December 2004 13.20 GMT)

Nope, the Ingram show was scheduled to be broadcast on the 18th September 2001, as that's the date on the cheques Chris Tarrant signs. BillyH 13:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I suspect that the Phil Jupitus/Rowland Rivron edition of Celebrity Millionaire has never been broadcast, even though there was a clip of it shown at the end of one show- "coming next time" etc.

Cypriot 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire'.

Are you sure that the prize was in Drachmes? The currency of Cyprus is the Cypriot Pound. Drachmes was the Greek pre-Euro currency. - (Aidan Work 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Prizes in Ukrainian version

Regarding the Ukrainian version, the article says: "Here, the top prize is 1,000,000 (the contestant chooses a money unit)." This sounds most peculiar. Is it supposed to mean that the contestants can have 1,000,000 of any currency they choose? Or maybe there are two more-or-less equivalent candidate currencies in Ukraine or something? This sentence needs to be clarified (or deleted). Anyone familiar with the Ukrainian show out there?

Article too big

The article is just too big. It would be ideal to break it up into seperate articles about the UK, US and the other versions of it rather than having them all in one article.

  • sounds like a good idea to me Jw6aa 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's unnecessary, because information about one item should be in a one place. --Wwways 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's too big. If you are only interested in, say, the US version, or the national variants, then it's easy enough to go straight to that part from the TOC. It's also easy enough to scroll down and quickly scan through the whole article to get a feel of what's included. If it was ten times as big then I would agree, but as it is right now I say it's fine. Matt 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC).
    • Well seeing as the USA gets the most attention it should have its own article, the UK should and I personally think AUstralia should too as it has been on longer than alot of the others and its large enough to have its own article. This article personaly I think should be strictly for the game rules, format, inception etc.. and international veriants maybe for the smaller countries. Mike 01:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, looking at it again maybe you're right. At least if the US section was moved to its own article that might be the incentive to clean up the text, which suffers from some sloppy wording and wonky and confusing chronology. Matt 11:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Split. See:

I hope it works better now, though it could still do with a cleanup. violet/riga (t) 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Sorry, I really didn't like the way the split was done so I have now done it a different way. Matt 13:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
      • And I've just had to undo all of that. You lost loads of information and it is far more appropriate to have a central article that covers the general details. We also need to maintain edit histories, and you hadn't. violet/riga (t) 14:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I Hope this isnt going to turn into a edit war Mike 14:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's hope not. I've changed it back because the original split broke the continuity of the description of the UK version (which would have resulted in UK contributions being arbitrarily added to the UK version or the "general" version), unnecessarily duplicated some general info, and also attributed by implication some info about the UK version which is not true of other versions. Apologies for the lack of edit summaries. I simply forgot, but later added some retrospective comments. My mistake. Matt 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
      • There needs to be a general article about the show, and that's what this article should be. The UK and US articles are appropriate splits from this page. You are making it very difficult to see general details. Please discuss things here rather than further edit warring. violet/riga (t) 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Hold on a second, I asked that we should discuss it here in all of my last edit summaries. You are the one who has changed it back again without discussion. There is no need for a "general" page that explains some of the UK version, with the rest of it somewhere else. It's just a recipe for total confusion. The UK version is the "template" for all other versions. It needs to be explained once, in one place. The other versions need to refer to the UK version, on which all the formats are based, and then explain any differences and give other country-specific information. Before I change it back again, could anyone else following this please express their views [below, under "Splitting of article - views sought"]? If others also disagree with me then I will defer to the majority opinion, but not just the opinion of one other person. Matt 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
          • You asked for discussion while reverting it to your personal preference. I tried to discuss it here before you did that. But anyway... The UK article should contain details of the British show. There should be an article talking about the show in general, and those looking at the US version should not be forced to look at the UK show for the details - they should be able to look at a main article. The general page does not "explain some of the UK version, with the rest of it somewhere else" - it details the format of the show. One major difference between our versions is that you want "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (national variants)" and I want it to be without the ugly bracketed addendum. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Er ... you also reverted it to your personal preference without discussion. Your "general" page contains many details that specifically describe the UK show. I know because I wrote some parts of it. I suspect you have no basis upon which to assume these details apply generally. I will start a new section below for others to express their views. Matt 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)~.

Wrong title

The austrian version of "WWTBAM" was NEVER called "Die zehn Millionen Show". In its first season, the show was called "Alles ist möglich - Die zehn Millionen Show" (that means EVERYTHING'S POSSIBLE - THE TEN MILLION SHOW) and was hosted by Rainhard Fendrich.

Article in German:

In Österreich heißt die Sendung Die Millionenshow und wird vom ehemaligen Skirennläufer und jetzigen Sportkommentator Armin Assinger moderiert. Seine Vorgänger waren Rainhard Fendrich (ab Januar 2000) und Barbara Stöckl (Mai 2000 bis September 2002). Zu Beginn hieß die Show "Alles ist möglich - Die 10-Millionen-Show". Zu gewinnen waren anfangs 10 Millionen österreichische Schilling (etwa 720.000 €), seit Einführung des Euros ist auch in Österreich der Höchstpreis eine Million Euro, allerdings mit teilweise anderen Gewinnstufen als in der deutschen Version. Die Millionenshow wird ebenfalls im NOB Studio 7 in Hürth produziert und vom ORF ausgestrahlt.

Poor quality of article

This article needs serious help. Many sentences aren't complete, virtually no sources are cited, and much of the article consists of irrelevant whining by diehard fans about this or that change having been made to the rules. Tcassedy 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, needs cleanup badly. --The Scurvy Eye a note? 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I split the "format" section and added a different title. Just see the diff [1]

--The Scurvy Eye a note? 03:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree also.I just put "clean up" on the page. Gemini531 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Gemini531

Splitting of article - views sought

There are two competing views about how this article should be split. See above under "Article too big" for background and arguments for each. The first (which, organisation-wise, is what is in place at the time of writing) consists of these pages:

The second consists of:

Opinions are sought on which organisation scheme is better. Please look at the links above, rather than whatever state the pages are in at the moment, because they have changed back and forth a few times. Note that the inter-page links in the above pages may not work as intended, because they will obviously point at whatever's there right now, rather than the versions that were intended. Remember, it is the organisation that is at issue, not the minutiae of the text on each of the pages. Matt 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

The second is far better, and allows for easier viewing, and less clutter. Kashami 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither is great, but I think that we need to have a page for the show in general, then one for the US, and one for the UK. The general page should also cover lesser known versions in other countries, such as the French version. But really, this article is so British-oriented, that action is needed NOW... I'm going to try to do something.aido2002 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'Victor Meldrew' coincidence

Chris Tarrant is on record as saying that the clash of Judith Keppel's show with the episode of One Foot In The Grave where Victor dies was just sheer coincidence.

I find this utterly believable. I cannot believe it'd be worth the candle for Celador to 'fix' a game show as popular and profitable as Millionaire, just to spite the BBC.

In any instance, by Nov 2000 the vast majority of UK households owned a VCR, so anybody who really wanted to watch both Judith and Victor could do so.

Arthurvasey (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not if the transmitter was off air - as it was that night across most of the HTV region - a video only records what is being broadcast from the transmitter - if there is no signal, all you get is fuzz.

It was just a coincidence, people. Coincidences happen. Get over it.... Martyn Smith 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thai version of Millionaire?

I don't know why would someone put Thailand on the list. I doubt that because the "Thai version" doesn't look like Millionaire at all; just a simple set with sponsors' logos on the background. It doesn't even resemble Millionaire. - 上村七美 | talk 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainians deceive participants?

"As in Russia, there is no 'Ask the Audience' because the audience gives wrong answers in order to deceive contestants."

This sounds like a joke or vandalism. Can someone confirm that Ukrainians are so sadistic on the show?--Loodog 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsources libel

I've just made a reversion to the correct version as it appears this page was edited with alot of unsourced accusations and libel in the intro. thanks/MatthewFenton (talkcontribs) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section with very basic details of John J. Leonard's claim, along with two that took legal action (referenced to media articles). Hopefully that will lay it all to rest.

Are phone a friends sequestered?

Couldn’t someone theoretically set up a phone a friend who is using Wikipedia to get the answer? I've looked up questions given the 30 seconds and was able to find the correct answers with a very high success rate. Would they consider that to be cheating? Are the phone a friends monitored?

Yes, don't know and no are the answers.

I don't believe that it's that easy, because once the question has been said, you only have like 10 seconds to search it, and if it's not a direct question, then it's very difficult. I have watched the Australian editon before (which is friender and more laid back than the UK editon) and they seem to almost welcome it; Eddie McGuire has often said "I hope you're got your Google Search ready" etc. 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some one is Going to be a Millionaire (SPOILER)

In the UK the person who plays next week wins £1,000,000. The first in two years.......Duff12 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan Weisman (SPOILER)

Is there any way anyone can verify that there was actually an audience member who leaked the news of this guy's million-dollar win on radio? They've recently released some official articles stating that a 35-year old graduate-student named Ogi Ogas (NOT a 19-year old student named Dan Weisman) will get to see the million-dollar question this November. I mean, it's definitely possible for two contestants to win the jackpot on the same month, with Buena Vista deciding not to release the second winner's identity. Of course, it could very well be the case that Ogi Ogas IS Dan Weisman, and the person who edited this article (or the audience member himself/herself) simply misheard the contestant's name. In any case, an official citation regarding Dan Weisman's win being leaked on radio (assuming that he is NOT the same as Ogi Ogas) would be a great addition to this article, and to the Dan Weisman article itself.

For those of you interested, the following links to the official article that I mentioned above: - S@lo 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) i perticularly think x factors better cmon son —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation at the top

For the US version of the show, see Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show).

Why do we single out the US version in this way, out of all the versions there are in the world? Especially, why the US version since the infobox to the right is about the UK version? Marnanel 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should not be. For comparison, the probably most watched version of Dancing with the Stars is the US version, but Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) is not disambiguated at the top amongst all the international versions. Tinlinkin 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The article is too long. Nation variants can be moved to a sub-article and Top prize winners can be moved to another sub-article. If nobody objects to this suggestion within few days, I'll move them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree. The list and the winners of each country should be moved to separate articles. When u edit the article, it shows that the article is 69 kilobytes long.-- 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no objection after 10 days, so I will proceed to create a sub-article for the winners. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

US Qualifications

In the "Rules" section (in reference to fastest finger) the article states: "This segment is not used in the US version when it moved to daytime television in 2002. Rather, contestants are required to pass a standard game show qualifying test at contestant auditions (usually 100 questions), and these contestants have passed a more difficult qualifying test than in the UK format."

I personally qualified just last week for the show and the test was only 30 questions. Am I out of the norm, or is the above text just made of guessing? Adam Weeden 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also auditioned at it was only 30 questions and they gave you 15 minutes. Mike Minnick

UK Scandal

Do you think we should include the UK Scandal in the article? (Y'know the one where someone who the contestant was cheating with in the audience gave a cough at the right answer) FiringRange 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned, I read it somewhere OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Ironically, given the large prizes that it offers, the show is named after a 1956 Cole Porter song[citation needed] from the film High Society which emphasised the desirability of love over material possessions: "Who wants to be a millionaire? I don't. / And I don't 'cause all I want is you."

What purpose does the word Ironically serve here? It seems redundant. Please let me know of a reason why it should not be removed. You are always welcome to revert my edits if needed. --KushalClick me! write to me 03:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say the use of the word Ironically is correct in this context because the Cole Porter song did have an anti-materialistic sentiment. The gameshow WWTBAM is all about wanting to become rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtain (talkcontribs) 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds like irony to me. --Luigifan (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Link Removal

There were links to flash games in this article that seemed like spam. We don't get links to Flash PacMan , so we don't need WWTBAM links. Of course, feel free to correct me if you think i'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigitrix (talkcontribs) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Background music?

Would it be prudent to include something on the background music and lighting effects during different parts of the show? Because it does differ every question.


  • Between $100 and $1,000, the music is faster than most of the other portions because most of the questions are quick-fire and easy to answer. The background music stays the same between questions and there is no transition music between questions.
  • Between $2,000 and $32,000, the music slows down, becomes more suspenseful, and has a "heartbeat" drum beat added into it. Between every question, there is a small tune that plays and the camera angle changes. Also, since the questions are not as quick anymore, the final answer is announced with a three-note sequence followed by a continuous drumroll before the correct answer is finally announced. This carries on right up to the last question. After every question, the background music's pitch and the three-note sequence's pitch rise one semitone.
  • Between $64,000 and $500,000, the music is at the same tempo but the long "aahs" in the second stretch are not used and instead, there are shorter "aahs" that play a sequence. The drumroll is still there, and the semitone of rise is also still existent. However, the pitch for the $64,000 question is the same as the one used for the $2,000 question.
  • On the last question, only the heartbeat is heard, as well as a continuous ambient pure tone.
  • If the contestant walks away, the background music stops abruptly.
  • When the Ask the Audience lifeline is being used, the background music changes to short percussive tones that alternate very quickly, to give the impression that many different sources are being polled.
  • When the Fastest Finger question is being played, the background music also changes to short percussive tones in the same sequence as the Audience lifeline, but it is in the key of C and the ambient music is more hollow.


  • Between $100 and $1,000, the lighting is brighter than the other questions.
  • Between $2,000 and $32,000, the stairways are still illuminated, but the bright background lights inside the studio darkens gradually with every question.
  • Between $64,000 and $500,000, the background is no longer illuminated by yellow lights, and only the blue lights are on inside the studio. They also gradually darken with each question.
  • On the last question, the stairways are no longer illuminated. Only the blue lights are on in the background, and they are very dark. The light shining on the contestant and host is very bright at this point.
  • While using the Ask the Audience lifeline, no matter which question it is used on, the lighting returns to normal and switches back as soon as the results are given.
  • When the contestant walks away, no matter what question the contestant walks away from, the lighting returns to normal.
  • When the Fastest Finger question is being played, some spotlights are turned on and they rotate through the players.

I'm not sure what to put as the source for all this, except that I watched the show and observed it while I was waiting for the contestant to actually answer the question. (Especially with Youtube and everything.) ZtObOr 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

just out of curiosity...

Have any of the contestants ever gotten a correct answer and mentioned that they read it on Wikipedia? --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Why does "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" redirect here? The only version of the show without the question mark is the American version. At the very least, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" ought to go to the disambig page. (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What is "syndicated distribution"?

The article contains the sentence "eliminated when the show moved to syndicated distribution in 2002". What is "syndicated distribution"? I have never heard the term, and there is no Wiki article on it. TiffaF (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad grammar. It was supposed to say Television syndication. King Shadeed 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(exactly a 1 in 24 chance, or 1/4!)

(exactly a 1 in 24 chance, or 1/4!) This is atrocious math! I have deleted this phrase from the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Burma (talkcontribs) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the arithmetic is incorrect, or that it is inappropriate for this article? Because the arithmetic is, in fact, correct. The Exclamation point represents a factorial, so 4! equals 4x3x2x1. 4x3=12, 12x2=24, 24x1=24. Perhaps the ! should be a link to the article of factorials? Ai1238 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


According to 2waytraffic, WWTBAM has it's first spin-off game show called 50-50 when they've eliminated that option from the game show. King Shadeed 10:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New format

If I'm not mistaken, this page is for the show in general. It hardly seems fair that the British version's revamp has its own section, and adding all the others in there would be way too much. Does anyone else think this should be kept to the UK article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai1238 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Expert

I've noticed that the expert in the U.S. version's Ask the Expert lifeline is frequently Bill Nye (yes, the Science Guy.) Should this be put in the article, and if so, how should it be worded? --Luigifan (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much of the UK version

This article is too focused on the UK version of the show. For example it lists two different prize structures of the UK version and discusses rule changes to the UK version. No other country gets this kind of treatment. Since there is already an article about the UK version of the show, shouldn't this article stick to a general description of the show from a world wide perspective?( (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Cheating Scandal plus Slumdog Millionaire

The section Slumdog millionaire should be integrated with Cheating Scandal, since there is not much information on the movie, and a reference to the cheating scandal of 2003. Androo123 - Signed out —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)