Talk:Taskmaster (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 10 June 2024, to Taskmaster, see discussion.
No consensus, 19 June 2024, to Taskmaster (British TV series), see discussion.

Bolders!!

why are some of the names bold, be nice to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.105.246 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Bold names are the contestants who "won" the series. Philedmondsuk (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How tasks are delivered…

The declaration in the format section: “All the tasks are delivered in an envelope with a wax seal” is demonstrably wrong. They are often on a piece of paper, folded into three, and sealed, or (on at least one occasion) rolled into a sealed scroll, and sealed in a toy balloon. I’m not even sue that an envelope is used that often, or may have been used less after a certain point in the series. Jock123 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as follows:

Taskmaster → Taskmaster (comics)
Taskmaster (disambiguation) → Taskmaster

— Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taskmaster (TV series) → Taskmaster
Taskmaster → Taskmaster (character)

– The television show is now in its fifth series and has an American adaptation, which I believe now makes it the primary topic over the comic book character. Pageviews (see here) for every page listed on Taskmaster (disambiguation) show that the television show is the page receiving most views – on most days, more than the other three pages combined. I imagine that this will increase dramatically as the fifth series continues (there was a noticeable spike about a week ago when the first episode was released online), and also that some views on the Marvel Comics character are unintentional (I have visited it a few times by accident looking for the television show). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose first this is a generic term and UK TV comedy game show cannot pass the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC any more than the Marvel character does. (and in fact doesn't pass the first according to page views above 1,204 of 2,369 isn't primary). Support second, but to Taskmaster (comics), then move Taskmaster (disambiguation) into vacant slot. Also Taskmaster (US TV series), means moving the UK original to Taskmaster (UK TV series) doesn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1204 is more than half of 2369, so the page views are accounting for more than every other topic combined, as the first requirement specifies. I'm not sure I understand your objection to the second requirement, which is: "it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". What other topic are you associated with that term? Plenty of words and phrases in the English language will take you to a page about a specific topic that took its name from that term – Friends and Cheers spring to mind. We're not comparing it to word meanings (we're not wiktionary), only other topics associated with the term,; I don't understand why we would put neither article at Taskmaster if one is clearly more commonly searched for than the other. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you should know that 55% is not enough to be automatic. and if we wind the view out to 12 months we can see plenty of days where the other colour lines not just together but even individually outdo the blue line. And besides THERE ARE TWO CRITERIA TO WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (caps for shouting :) because it appears normal text wasn't enough above). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose first move for the TV series. Support second move, but to Taskmaster (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would support making the disambiguation page, the primary topic. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first move. It's a generic term. Support second move to Taskmaster (comics). Move Taskmaster (disambiguation) to Taskmaster. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the opposition with @Fortdj33: and @Necrothesp:. If the consensus is the merge to Taskmaster (comics), perhaps the Taskmaster link can be redirected to the disambiguation or something. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of contestants?

Why was the list of contestants (and consequently winners) removed? It's one of the main reasons I check this page. I agree that it might've been better in table form, but removing it completely is wrong. Also the 'International Broadcasts' section is duplicated in the top section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.95.224 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been removed - it's been converted to prose and moved to the History section. See also List of Taskmaster episodes. We call the "top section" the "lead" and its purpose is to summarise points from the "body" (rest of) the article, hence why it contains duplicated information. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally, I still think that a table would be a better suited for this, as it would be faster and easier to read. Also what I meant with "duplicated" is that almost the entire 'International Broadcasts' section appears in the lead word for word just copied, making the section below kinda pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.29.154 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still a bit conflicted about the article's layout and structure, but I think you're probably right. I've added the list, reformatted to (hopefully) look better, back. Feel free to summarise the International broadcasts paragraph in the lead more concisely, or add more detail to the section in the body. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the original 20 taken part in the TV version of the show? (Mobile mundo (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

(Just so you know, Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages are for discussion of the article not the topic itself.) Yes, Tim Key (series 1), Joe Wilkinson (series 3) and Mark Watson (series 5) have all taken part in the TV show. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Fringe Festival

Mike Wozniak won the original internet version in 2009 but who won the 2010 Fringe festival version? Strangely enough it revealed who won the second fringe festival version. Mobile mundo (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Fringe festival was the climax of the internet version. The last task was done live.(Mobile mundo (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Ordering of contestants

Yesterday, I changed the layout of the Contestants section to this and 15schaa has reverted me, explaining that "When talking about the contestants, they are typically listed in alphabetical order (how they sit). This system provides more information." Using bullet points and numbering seems very confusing and redundant to me – we already note in the section that "The guests always sit in alphabetical order by first name" – and it's not easy to see the order they came in at a glance when this is permuted into alphabetical order.

Readers understand already what alphabetical order is and could easily place the contestants in this order, so it seems to me like we should instead list them by the position they finished in, and do away with the alphabetising. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I'd forgotten about this until 15schaa removed my comments in this edit, but I've now changed it to the version I've justified above. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of Taskmaster episodes

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.

Per User:Bignole/Episode page

The main Taskmaster page has 11 kb of readable prose so the episodes shouldn't be split. Matt14451 (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The nine tables on the episode list page would be overwhelmingly disproportionate on the main Taskmaster page. The current situation is standard, as evidenced by the articles for any other show you can think of with at least seven series. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging author of linked evidence @Bignole:. Looking at other examples like Go 8-Bit then maybe they should be merged as well. Merged in sandbox User:Matt14451/sandbox2 to see how it looks. Matt14451 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's just too long. You're also comparing a three series show to one with seven series, plus specials, and at least two more series planned. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the closest show I could think of at the time. I used the tool suggested in the page above by Bignole and it said there was only 11 kb of "readable prose" which is below the splitting threshold. Matt14451 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you need to measure the readable prose of the page before the split, and the episode list is almost entirely tables, so this doesn't make sense to do. We also need to abide by policies like due weight, rather than giving a disproportionately large part of the article to details of every episode's transmission. Note also that WP:SIZESPLIT says that the readable prose recommendations "apply less strongly to list articles". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this page? There was a list of scores per episode a few weeks ago which was much more useful than in it's current form! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.60.33 (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not suitable for Wikipedia. They can be found at Taskmaster Wiki. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged a couple of times, so I figured I'd come take a look. The argue of "it's too long" is clearly not accurate if the readable prose is that low for the main article. Unless you're trying to say that it takes too long to "scroll"? That doesn't seem right, as we have lots of "long" articles when it comes to how long it takes to scroll. Given that we're not talking plots or any other readable prose for these tables, I don't see why they wouldn't exist on the main parent page. per WP:SPLIT, which is pretty clear about when to split pages. I mean, 11kb of readable prose is reeeeeaaaallly low to split a page. The age of us just splitting pages because other pages have done it in the past has come and gone. There's no reason to send a reader to another page just to get a bunch of dates and host names that they can get here. There's nothing else going on with the LoE page that would require separation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. I'm saying that the readable prose is not an accurate measure of the density of information in the case of a set of tables (in which 0 bytes of readable prose are counted). Who mentioned scrolling? If this page is to be merged then it requires a broader consensus from WP:TV because there are lots of similar series articles which have set precedent for separate LoE pages. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages: "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." --- You're not even at 80 episodes, and even then you don't have anything beyond the most basic of information. There isn't a reason to have a separate page (which doesn't meet WP:SIZE or WP:MOSTV description of when to split) for basically a list of hosts and when they appeared. I see no reason why those tables couldn't exist on this page. If you're worried about "congestion", then make them collapsible. That said, there is barely any information on this page to begin with, so.... BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read guidelines before citing them. Emphasis: "it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists". This is referring to splitting pages like List of The Big Bang Theory episodes into The Big Bang Theory (season 1). No-one has suggested a Taskmaster (series 1) page. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is confusing but the next line is "these lists are often the first stepping stone for season articles", making it clear that the first part which you quote refers to "list of ... episodes" articles. Matt14451 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the next sentence which is confusing. "These" refers to LoE episodes based on context. But "episode list" unambiguously refers to LoE episodes. It's talking about splitting up LoE pages, not splitting series pages. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the basic point, the Taskmaster page does NOT contain enough information to warrant splitting. Period. That's not even arguable, because you can see that even without hitting the "page size" button. We have a guide on when to split pages, we've pointed to it multiple times. Right now, your argument is what, "other pages are doing it"? Yes, we know. We also decided we wouldn't rush across Wikipedia to get them all in line immediately when we talked about getting this issue under control (to which there was a broad consensus announced as we've made changes to the MOS...I'm sorry if you didn't participate at the time...lack of participation does not mean lack of consensus). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Merged. Matt14451 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (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.

Adding task lists to episode tables

Would it be appropriate to add a list of the tasks as a 'synopses' of each episode, or would this be too trivial? Reality series like The Apprentice have summaries in the same format as scripted series, and I think a full list of tasks would better portray the tone of the series and variety of tasks (which can be very different to one another) than the few referenced in the Format section. LostTL (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants

Can I suggest a table with rows denoting the seat they where sat on on set or by place on leader board. Columns obviously by series and each contestant box with their names and points. This shortens the article and list. If there are enough people who agree I shall create said table I am suggesting. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could draw up a table denoting what colour socks they were wearing... 90.249.200.87 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Series 11 and CoC II

Since Series 11 is announced as coming soon, while the press release just mentions that Taskmaster is ready for CoC II, shouldn't Series 11 be listed before CoC II? It is also the order they are mentioned in the pr. --Moedk (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, but I think it's all speculative at the moment. The current order makes sense to me, as CoC II relates to series 6-10 but not to series 11. If series 11 airs before the specials then we might have to have a bigger discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this broadcast order is confirmed, perhaps said bigger discussion is upon us. Now that Taskmaster "continuity" is no longer a straight shot of series with a Champion of Champions special falling immediately after a fifth series and has branched into non-CoC-eligible specials as well, is there a more appropriate way of listing/grouping series? I see two relatively logical methods: one would be to group into "Series", "Champion of Champions Specials", and "Other Specials" (presumably titled "Taskmaster's New Year Treat" until another was announced); the second would be by "era" (1-5 & CoC I, 6-10 & CoC II, 11-15 & the presumable CoC III) and then specials (with the same parenthetical as the first option). I prefer the second method slightly to the first but am uncertain of the best way to phrase it as there is no official terminology I'm aware of for each set. I do, however, believe that either one would be more informative about the structure of the competition if incorporated into most currently-chronological areas of the article. Also, while technically unrelated to this page, I feel compelled to note that similar discussions will probably have to be had over at the Taskmaster Wiki on this same topic and whether/how to follow any structural changes (or lack thereof) made here. Flanl33 (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like us to just keep one table with broadcast order—what annoys me is really that they didn't air CoC II before series 11 (though this could be pandemic constraints, who knows?), not our presentation of that fact. However, separating the specials out is not a bad idea and would make sense. On a separate note, the episodes are probably suitable for a split to List of Taskmaster episodes now or soon, as it's only going to get longer (I believe the show is now renewed up to series 15). — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for the series?

I want to make a navbox for the series, but I am concerned that others might take issue with it since it would just be a navbox mostly filled with various people who had been on the show. –WPA (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I had in mind:

Interesting idea and well worth suggesting. I would fear that for most contestants, their appearance on the show is not "career-defining" in the way we might usually expect for people listed in navboxes (this applies particularly to New Year's Treat). If we restrict it just to the four national editions which have articles (and more could be notable, so we might hope for that number to increase) then I'm not sure whether a category or navbox is more appropriate, but it does seem that we should have one or the other. I read WP:NAVBOX but didn't find much information which swayed me on whether to include panellists, or whether to use a category instead. — Bilorv (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPediaAid: I forgot about this but should we do something about it? I might create a navbox just containing the notable national editions of Taskmaster. — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{Taskmaster}} and added it to the listed articles. — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Series Overview section

Personally, I prefer the way we had it before, as two separate tables - one for series, one for contestants. I think it was easier to read, looked better and was easier to update for future series - as it stands, we need to wait until a series ends to add the lineup to it, because it's reliant on the positions they finish in. It's been on my mind for a while, and now we're close to having to update it for series 12, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts. This is essentially what I was thinking:

Series	Episodes	Originally aired
Series	Episodes	First aired	Last aired	Network
1	6	28 July 2015 (2015-07-28)	1 September 2015 (2015-09-01)	Dave
2	5	21 June 2016 (2016-06-21)	19 July 2016 (2016-07-19)
3	5	4 October 2016 (2016-10-04)	1 November 2016 (2016-11-01)
4	8	25 April 2017 (2017-04-25)	13 June 2017 (2017-06-13)
5	8	13 September 2017 (2017-09-13)	1 November 2017 (2017-11-01)
CoC	2	13 December 2017 (2017-12-13)	20 December 2017 (2017-12-20)
6	10	2 May 2018 (2018-05-02)	4 July 2018 (2018-07-04)
7	10	5 September 2018 (2018-09-05)	7 November 2018 (2018-11-07)
8	10	8 May 2019 (2019-05-08)	10 July 2019 (2019-07-10)
9	10	4 September 2019 (2019-09-04)	6 November 2019 (2019-11-06)
10	10	15 October 2020 (2020-10-15)	17 December 2020 (2020-12-17)	Channel 4
NYT	1	1 January 2021 (2021-01-01)
11	10	18 March 2021 (2021-03-18)	20 May 2021 (2021-05-20)
CoC II	TBA	2021	2021

Series	Seating
Series	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
1	Frank Skinner	Josh Widdicombe	Roisin Conaty	Romesh Ranganathan	Tim Key
2	Doc Brown	Joe Wilkinson	Jon Richardson	Katherine Ryan	Richard Osman
3	Al Murray	Dave Gorman	Paul Chowdhry	Rob Beckett	Sara Pascoe
4	Hugh Dennis	Joe Lycett	Lolly Adefope	Mel Giedroyc	Noel Fielding
5	Aisling Bea	Bob Mortimer	Mark Watson	Nish Kumar	Sally Phillips
CoC	Bob Mortimer	Josh Widdicombe	Katherine Ryan	Noel Fielding	Rob Beckett
6	Alice Levine	Asim Chaudhry	Liza Tarbuck	Russell Howard	Tim Vine
7	James Acaster	Jessica Knappett	Kerry Godliman	Phil Wang	Rhod Gilbert
8	Iain Stirling	Joe Thomas	Lou Sanders	Paul Sinha	Sian Gibson
9	David Baddiel	Ed Gamble	Jo Brand	Katy Wix	Rose Matafeo
10	Daisy May Cooper	Johnny Vegas	Katherine Parkinson	Mawaan Rizwan	Richard Herring
NYT	John Hannah	Krishnan Guru-Murthy	Nicola Coughlan	Rylan Clark-Neal	Shirley Ballas
11	Charlotte Ritchie	Jamali Maddix	Lee Mack	Mike Wozniak	Sarah Kendall
CoC II	Ed Gamble	Kerry Godliman	Liza Tarbuck	Lou Sanders	Richard Herring

Indicator(s)
Champions

Champion of Champions

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15schaa (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the table is unwieldy and a return to the two-table system would be preferable. I can see the benefit of listing all the positions rather than just indicating first place, but especially with the tied places and the fact that there will be a series yet-to-begin the majority of the time in the forseeable future (since the line-up is announced immediately after the previous finale), the traditional alphabetical-by-first-name order works for me. — Bilorv (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@15schaa: should we go ahead and do this? I see another person got confused by the current layout here. — Bilorv (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it. 15schaa (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the old format, with a couple of updates now we've had an extra series or so. I really can't work out how to align the "Indicator(s)" box properly so that it has a left border. I think, per MOS:COLORCODING, that we also need to adapt the lower table a bit to communicate better to colour-blind and blind readers who the winners were (maybe a dagger symbol inside the winner's box, and add the dagger to the legend). — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally gotten around to this—I've gone with asterisk and dagger footnotes. Other suggestions are welcome. — Bilorv (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast champions

I find the marks for champions a bit unfortunate. Using the cross makes it look as if these are dead. I fell two times for this already. Marcus.Juergens (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a cross but a Template:Dagger/doc used for alternative text. Moedk (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a dagger if the winner is already highlighted in gold. Can we just use the shading rather than both? OGBC1992 (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OGBC1992: this is done for accessibility purposes, for instance for blind people who use screen readers. See MOS:COLORCODING and the discussion above. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coc and Nyt

What are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Champion of Champions and New Years Treat. (Fran Bosh (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Taskmaster Junior

Since it has been announced, would it be great if we made an article about that?

85.76.105.111 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without much concrete information about the series, what purpose would an article serve? The information can be included here for now and when the topic is notable (i.e. there's in-depth coverage about how the show is made or what reviewers think about it), it can be split into a new article. — Bilorv (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So we can make an article then, when there is more information available?!

85.76.105.111 (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When there's more coverage in reliable sources with too much information to fit on this article, yes. — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 2024

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: not moved. The proposed series was opposed as not the primary topic. There was no effective comment for the PDAB conflict between the American and British series, hence, a new RM should be initiated. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic per pageviews. This also resolves the current WP:PDAB conflict with Taskmaster (American TV series). 162 etc. (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. Surely the primary topic by historical importance is the role? BD2412 T 00:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic doesn't have to be a dictionary definition? See Cheers (which doesn't redirect to Toast (honor)), Friends (which doesn't redirect to Friendship), etc... 162 etc. (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since there is not, and likely will never be, an article for the generic term "taskmaster". Of the articles that exist and are likely to exist, this one clearly wins out over the others on usage (see more below). It's hard to tease out long-term significance when all the options are entertainment products, but there's at least a good case to be made for the British show.
For usage, the page view data shows the British show gets more than 70% of the past year's page views of all the options at the disambiguation page, and an order of magnitude more than the next most popular option. The Wiktionary pageviews for "taskmaster", presumably the option readers would click on if they were looking for the common noun, are negligible. The WikiNav data, as of April 2024, shows that the British show gets about 75% of the outgoing clicks from the dab page. The 2nd through 8th most popular outgoing targets were other national versions of the show, which readers can get to either through clicking through the disambiguation hatnote or via the lead or body of the British show's article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle a support based on the show being the PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think it would be better to have a Taskmaster franchise page (which can be built using some of the content from the UK version). This would be comparable to how The Amazing Race is set up, that while the US version is the most recognized, its at a subarticle under that. --Masem (t) 03:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a taskmaster is a boss who assigns tasks, so supervisor is the primary topic. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not the primary meaning of Taskmaster by any sort of long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not PRIMARY by long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the event that this TV series is not found to be the primary topic, does anyone object to moving to Taskmaster (British TV series), to resolve the PDAB? 162 etc. (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the PDAB concern specifically is. The British show is the primary one, and we do not have a specific franchise page, so this page doubles up as the franchise. The British version is the most well known so should stay without British as a disambiguator, in my opinion. Soni (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PDAB. What you are describing is allowed only in the rarest of circumstances. 162 etc. (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't see how it would be primary over the literal meaning of the word. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Maybe it's just my life history but taskmaster is a word I've only ever known to be pejorative, and not a synonym for supervisor - a quick hit to Wiktionary should sort it. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCENSORED whether it is a pejorative or not, it is not the TV show. A demanding supervisor would not be the TV show topic. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2024 (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.

Requested move 19 June 2024

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taskmaster (TV series) → Taskmaster (British TV series) – Insufficient disambiguation; see Taskmaster (American TV series). 162 etc. (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the previous RM above, which determined that this article is not the primary topic for Taskmaster and needs to retain some kind of disambiguation tag. 162 etc. (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose among all the international versions of TM, the British one is by far the primary topic as a TV series. — Masem (t) 19:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only if a franchise article were to be split. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and split off a franchise article, -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this, put franchise at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We can't really put something that doesn't yet exist at this page title. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since the British show is the primary topic. I'd encourage the creating of Taskmaster (franchise), and we'll see after a while how the usage shifts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As per other editors have suggested, I would suggest first creating a Taskmaster (franchise) article first before considering moving this article to Taskmaster (British TV series). Also commenting that the British iteration of Taskmaster is the original and the primary version. Mjks28 (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2024 (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.

Post closure discussions

The need for a franchise article does not mean that this article should not move. As pointed out, it is ambiguous with other TV shows, so to get to the correct article, "British" would make it clear what the subject of this article is. After moving this article, splitting off a franchise article could be done. It does not need to come first. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly the primary topic here, other than if we had an article that covered all of the series, which is currently part of this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

series locations

what do people think about including a table detailing the various locations used across the series? 146.200.132.123 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Horne and Big Brother

the History section states that part of the inspiration for the show was Alex Hornes' work on Big Brother. I can't find any reference to this anywhere. is it true, incorrect, or vandalism? 146.200.132.123 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "I'd say the Crystal Maze [was an influence], that's a good starting point. I used to work in Big Brother in the third series, I was a logger, which was the worst of all jobs, you had to sit and watch what happens and type it into a computer." Masem (t) 08:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem what's the source for this quote? 146.200.132.123 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the link from digital spy right before it in my reply above. --Masem (t) 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Taskmaster page?

Now that its been airing for a few weeks, would a page for Junior Taskmaster be feasible now? VehementMan (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it has a reception that is wholly different from the main series, no, particularly as none of the children participating are notable. A section on this page is fine. Masem (t) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]