Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series)

Picture quality

The technology that allows high-quality pictures to be transmitted halfway around the world would once have been considered groundbreaking but is now taken for granted.

Is this really necessary? TMC1221 23:54, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere near vandalism (referring to your edit summary) - but it seems a little out of place. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not 100% on topic, but it just struck me that here's this fantastic technology that everyone takes for granted nowadays and all they can think to use it for is some dumb game show. Gah. Lee M 02:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic statement, also not really the place for such a statement. TMC1221 02:53, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say unencyclopedic, it is a true statement, just that the natural article for it would be history of television#live satellite rather than this specific show. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is true, it is verifiable, it is NPOV, but it is not Wikipedia:Informative, in addition to being out of place. TMC1221 20:24, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere near vandalism I realize that, I was just at a loss for words and I guess I chose poorly. TMC1221 02:53, Feb 7, 2004 (dumb

While editors might not like the form of wording, is it not telling to say that - despite the best and latest technology - all some TV producers can think of is using it for some dumb game show?

Globality

Given how quickly Pop Idol and Who wants to be a millionaire? spread around the world, I doubt that this programme, which has a similar feel to it, is limited to only the UK, US and Germany. Anyone know if its on elsewhere? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Only France has since launched it, but that's because of similarities to Survivor. Digifiend 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The show was also shown in The Netherlands (in 2004 and 2005 if I'm not mistaken) see the official site (in Dutch) here I've added this. Uhro87 08:54, 8 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

ive no idea how to do them so im putting this here...there needs to be more redirects...i didnt know this article existed until i saw there was a link from it on george bests page. it needs some sort of redirect for someone searching "im a celebrity" at the very least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.224.126 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-27 19:50:18.

See Wikipedia:Tutorial, and in particular WP:R. There are already heaps of redirects for this page, and searching for "I'm a Celebrity" will show you many of them. I've added two more (by creating the article and putting "#REDIRECT [[I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!]]" as the content. When you leave comments on pages remember to sign them using four tildes, ~~~~. Thanks/wangi 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Survivor court case

Any link to the outcome of this case? The Survivor article says I'm a celeb won it.--Shtove 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Red button

I added a quick explanation of the 'red-button', I live in the UK and I had to think for a few seconds what it was on about, I'm sure international readers wouldnt have had a clue! 87.127.25.131 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note

The names I just put on were expressly mentioned on the Phil and Fern show yesterday and are also rumoured to be on the show just like the others. They are all rumours at this point in time. We won't actually know who is going into the jungle for another few days, so either we should leave all these people on the page for now or take them any or all speculation off til the actual announcements are made.

Remove them all, rumours don't meet WP:RS, and neither do "teasers" (what ever that might be). Remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks/wangi 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

However consider WP:RS - two of the names have references and these refs are from a reliable source (I think). /wangi 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries/index.html?in_gallery_id=9022&in_image_id=298056&in_page_id=1055

Remote crocodile lies?

"Marksmen were shown ready to shoot the animals if they attacked. It was later revealed that the crocodiles were man-made and moved by remote control by Ant and Dec" Where was this later revealed? Last I heard was that it was film of real crocodiles shot separately interspersed with the footage of annoying Sheila Ferguson scrambling in that mud pool.

Days of the week

Just a quick question to Wangi. Why did you get rid of the days of the week? Those have been there for years now, and also are needed there. I did check the link you gave but I couldn't find out where you got the idea that they should be taken off. I present to you a part of the page where it states that the weekdays can be added but not linked to,

Partial dates If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006, although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination.

Examples of links which do not respond to readers’ date preferences:

Year only: 1974 → 1974. Month only: April → April. Generally should not be linked. Century: 20th century → 20th century. Decade: 1970s → 1970s. Year and month: April 1974 → April 1974. Recent year and month: April 2000 → April 2000. Currently articles only exist for combinations from the year 1999 to the present.

Day of the week (with or without other date elements): Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally should not be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.12.169 (talk) 2006-11-19T19:19:32

Missed this. The days of the week do not add anything, and the partial dates need formatting properly so they are displayed according to each users preferences - they were not before, and are now. Thanks/wangi 13:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare the the two following formatted ranges for the 1st series:

• (8 contestants, Monday August 25 - Sunday September 8, 2002)
• 8 contestants, August 25 2002 - September 8, 2002:

Due to my date preferences these are shown like:

• (8 contestants, Monday August 25 - Sunday 2002-09-08)
• 8 contestants, 2002-08-25 - 2002-09-08:

Thanks/wangi 13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations desperately needed!

The above says it all. Fin. (Willieboyisaloser 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

More in-depth this year

Could we cover this year's series more in-depth, a bit like this year's Big Brother series. Jinxed - talk 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bushtucker trials for Series 7?

Do we really need a extensive list for the Bushtucker Trials for series 7? There are no mention of Bushtucker Trials for Series 1-6? Why should we have Bushtucker trial recaps if they are not mirrored in the other series? Strictly Come Dancing does it, but posters have been updating the page for a few years now.?-- 69.90.207.148 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Samusek2

• I don't think we should do it as it would look bad because none of the other series have it. However if we are going to do it we should do it right with a table. I'm all for editing it (but my preference it that we don't have it!)---- Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should, because it gives more information about the series - why shouldn't we do it just because we didn't do it in the last series? Jinxed - talk 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Because it gives the impression that the other series didn't have trials--Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Keep it because it doesnt give the impression that the other series didn't have trials at all____In23065 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • But all the series need to be equal to the previous series just like Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing on Ice. That is what the administrators would say. Maybe we should ask one to find out what to do, before getting into an argument. 69.90.207.148 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC) samusek2

Query over title format

Just curious as to why the title format is "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here..."? Surely it would be better to be in the format "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!"? The IMDb and tv.com have it in the latter style. If the title format should remain the way it is now, some article re-directs need to be fixed. -TonyW (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have never seen it with the three "..." after "celebrity" and "here" , It should definitely have a "!" at the end of "here" because that is how it appears in the title sequence. I also think "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!" would be better. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Official Title is I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here! However Sky and teletext call it I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here...

No I think your mistaken. Sky call it I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out..., because they can't fit all of it in the box. I think we should call it I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!--Hiltonhampton (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the three ... after Celebrity even though Sky appear to include it. Surely a comma will suffice? -TonyW (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No I think that the ... in the middle is fine but not at the end.

In that case, I've begun the process of fixing I'm a Celebrity links on articles and relevant re-directs to make sure they point to the right page. Hiltonhampton, perhaps you could fix the link on your user page, please? ;) - TonyW (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All done! Need anything else, don't hesitate to ask!--Hiltonhampton (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch

Do you think we should try and cover some of the Dutch versions?--Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, as there have not been any versions of I'm A Celebrity in Holland. There was a similar show called Bobo's in the Bush, but this was a different format that the broadcaster obtained from Endemol. Worldofbb (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But in the main intro it states that as the Dutch version of the show.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bushtucker trials

Should we still record the trials that the public don't vote for--Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)?

Also why is the table for the trials yellow?--Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ITVCelebrity.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous for

Biggins was famous for more than just doing, that is =k'fvolhas been doing lately but he worked on a lot of television programmes and films. It should say actor. Here is his IMDB page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0081811/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.165.7 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush battles

Introduced in the 2007 series Cooly123 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Fees and rumors

=series?Cooly123 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Ratings

Can someone find the ratings for all series, especially the opening show and the finals. and place them in their respected sections.

Also series 1-6 need more information in leui of series 7 and 8 pages.Cooly123 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with File:IACGMOOH logo.png

The image File:IACGMOOH logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

American series

Needs a seperate page, any information is greatly needed and with a second season possible starting in mid 2009 the time is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The chart of american contestants for season 1 should be in boot out order like the others seasons for the uk edition etc... --Cooly123 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More information

American series 2 is starting in June 2009, the offical website is up too. Any rumored contestants should be mentioned as well. comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

With a thrid series iminent in late may 2010/early june 2010 to start maybe we should put a holding page in place with information as it becomes available.--Cooly123 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Logo

Can we place the orignial series logo back into the pages for series 1-7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also famous celebrities who have supported each contestant should be listed as well (this can be found on the main website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this programme a fake?

On the website of AOL on November 27 2010, it was announced that the contestants do not stay in a real jungle but in place with its own postal address, and that the crocodiles were made of latex. Any one who has more in-depth knowledge of such criticisms of the series could add it here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is all real --MSalmon (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sponsors

Perhaps a list of sponsors from the run of the show could be added?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

---

• I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series) → I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!
• I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! → I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (franchise)

I've come across countless links to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! where the UK show is the intended target. Even the UK version's template doesn't have parenthesis. The link at the top of the template also mis-redirected to the main franchise instead of the UK version until I fixed it earlier on. I know numerous international versions of the show have been made but only one (the U.S. version) has the same title, but it is/was nowhere near as high-profile, popular or successful as the UK show. I'm not trying to be biased but IMO the original UK version is the primary topic. (BTW, the reason the parameter looks like this is because every time I tried to submit a multi-move it kept saying "Parameter current1 must be I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series).", even though it was. Don't know why. Unreal7 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any collaborative evidence that the US version "is/was nowhere near as high-profile, popular or successful" as the UK version? Reasons for a move should not be based on an "IMO" reason. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that there were just two series of the American version, spaced six years apart, while the UK version has had twelve series and still remains one of ITV's biggest shows even still, is anything else neeeded? Unreal7 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: rename the template, it definitely needs to be renamed -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - how can one of 7 national versions of the I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! franchise be more notable than the mother article itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  When it isn't the same title. Unreal7 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even when the UK version is popular, it is too recent to be primary. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per George Ho. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

Voting figures 2014

Here are the voting figures (Coachtripfan (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

They are already in the series 14 article page. But thanks anyway. --MSalmon (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113105211/http://www.officialantanddec.com/videos-tv/view/Behind%20the%20Scenes%20at%20the%20Jungle%20Camp-90 to http://www.officialantanddec.com/videos-tv/view/Behind%20the%20Scenes%20at%20the%20Jungle%20Camp-90

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Camp split

At the minute it shows the camp mates as Jungle celebs and City celebs based on their first challenge, but there was no split in camp. Surely this section should only exist when the camp is split into two like a lot of previous series? There is no need for this section this year. Last year is the same. There was no split, so there is no need for the section. I tried to remove it but an IP continued to re-add it. ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Known for column in tables

I'd like to raise the question of how these are written. The versions used in this main article are different to those used in the series article and different again to those used on-screen as part of the lower thirds. I know that this is certainly the case for the current series, Series 17 and I haven't checked others. At the very least the articles should be consistent with each other and I think that using our own definition of what people are known for may constitute original research so using the phrasing used on-screen would probably be the best way forward. The boss 1998 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming series

@DonutsAndBakewells: Please tell me how the disputed edit does not violate WP:TVGUIDE. "We" are Wikipedia and its editors, and we are not here to provide convenience. You yourself admit that it violates the given guideline, a convenient way for readers to be allocated to the current/most recent series. -- Alex^TW 00:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not admit that this violates the guideline? No where in what I said did I say that that violates the guideline and nowhere in the WP:TVGUIDE does it say ‘Do not provide a link to the most recent series so reader don’t get confused’. DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DonutsAndBakewells: You did. You said it's there to provide users with a easy link to the newest series. That's the definition of making this website a guide, read it again: electronic program guide [...]. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, [...] current schedules. "Broadcaster", programme, same rules apply. Also, I just realized that it's an actual policy, not a guideline, and thus must be followed. -- Alex^TW 00:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DonutsAndBakewells: Your reply is expected, else your silence will be considered consensus and the content will be removed. For what it's worth, this version, where the draft was linked, most definitely violates MOS:LINKSTYLE, in which drafts should never be linked to from the article space: Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself. -- Alex^TW 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@DonutsAndBakewells: One answer is here is not "discussed". If you continue to revert, you will be reported to the administrative noticeboard. -- Alex^TW 23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn’t violate th WP:TVGUIDE. Why on Earth are you only reverting the I’m a celebrity link? Millions of television shows all over the world have the link to the current/most recent series at the top of the page. If so, you’ve got a lot of work to do my darling! Night x DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read TVGUIDE? I cited exactly what it violates. And I'm not the only editor reverting, another has taken action as well, and I'll happily remove them all. -- Alex^TW 23:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

THIS IS RIDICULOUS IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CURRENT SERIES BEING SHOWN ON THE ARTICLE THEN YOU NEED TO CHANGE HUNDREDS OF OTHER ARTICLES... FOR EXAMPLE Strictly Come Dancing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybaby1234 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This was confusing to read, but... I do think that AlexTheWhovian has a point. Perhaps it would be best that any and all articles regarding televisions shows that are actively being broadcast or have not been cancelled, do not include the For template, in this style "For the current/recent series of <TV SHOW>, please see <Series No Article>". I'd certainly amend The Apprentice (UK TV series) in that regard. GUtt01 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Is it possible to protect the page so only confirmed users can edit? I've noticed that the same IP has persistently vandalised the page and I don't think anyone has reported them. (I've also put in a request for P.P on the admin page). L1amw90 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Under bushtucker trials it lists the celebrities in the inner circle. Nick and James are not in the inner circle as they were not chosen by Noel after the bushtucker trial so they were available to be voted for in the Drown and Out trial. Gardenshed95 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Spintendo  19:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion Discussion - Series 1-19 articles

The following articles linked to this article have been nominated for deletion, pending a discussion surrounding all nominees. Editors seeking to determine how best to proceed in this matter should please visit the relevant AfD for more information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1)

GUtt01 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The AfD has now concluded, but ended with a general belief of NO CONSENSUS. This viewpoint is attributed to the overview of the discussion in a closing statement when the AfD came to its conclusion. Please refer to the closure statement here for more details. GUtt01 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Season Article Content

Season articles for this programme at present contain a selection of information pertaining to each series of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series), but what information should be in it and the general style/presentation is now a major question. There are three areas with problems - the result and elimination tables; information on challenges; and lack of episode listing. Questions regarding each are listed below. Please respond to each with either a Yes or No, followed by reason for answer. GUtt01 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@GUtt01: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It is far from neutral. It is written by an editor who has a current AFD to delete the entire series of 20 articles and this RFC appears more worded as a instruction with statements such as "Why didn't someone consider the possibility it was poorly designed" and "added in by editors who are too enthusiastic". WP:Be Bold springs to mind! Leaky caldron (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I would, but I'd rather get people's opinions on this to at least see what others think! I don't want to change things until I'm certain that others share a similar viewpoint on the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Unclear and/or premature. GUtt01 I recommend withdrawing the RFC. RFCs are generally for resolving a clearly defined existing conflict. I suggest you either just jump in and start making improvements, or just post your plans/concerns without an RFC tag if you want to check with article-watchers first.

My general thoughts: This article and the season articles are poorly sourced and have too much indiscriminate trivia - for example I just deleted an entire section from this article.[1] The tables can probably be improved. I don't think we need expanded the challenge info, and Episode Listings seems like overkill. Alsee (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@GUtt01: Why is there an RfC here when you have already created an AFD? The suggestion of a RfC was mentioned in the context of being an alternative to the AfD (The AFD is completely unfounded since each season passes WP:GNG). I agree that article content can be challenged - but why would anyone participate here when your AfD threat is hanging over the articles? Also, will you please stop removing edits from other contributors who are critical of your actions? WP:TPO is clear on refactoring / removing others' edits. Improving articles is something that we should all be concerned with but seeking to delete an entire series seems inconsistent with that aim. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Result & Voting Tables

Please respond here with suggestions and discussions to this question: Are the layouts of the table okay? If not, how could they be improved? GUtt01 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Challenge Information

Please respond here with suggestions and discussions to this question: Is this information within the scope of general interest? GUtt01 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Episode Listings

Please respond here with suggestions and discussions to this question: Should we have episode listings within season articles for this programme? GUtt01 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Series 19

Could someone please edit the details of series 19 as the show has now finished for this year? 92.21.79.99 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Beverley / Victoria finishing order

The article lists Beverly as 10th and Victoria as 9th, they were both eliminated on the same night.

This link from ITV says that Victoria was the 3rd to leave, Victoria should therefore be 10th and Beverley 9th. There are no other sources that explicitly state the order of elimination but this: https://www.itv.com/imacelebrity/articles/victoria-is-the-third-celeb-to-leave-the-castle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.8.44.162 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Bored of watching same celebrity do challenge!

I have been really enjoying this series. The last ones in Wales were miserable and cut short. Finally, there are a decent selection of celebrities and I want to watch. But I am so fed up of watching Matt Hancock doing all of the trials. Yes. He messed up. But I’m pretty sure every celebrity in there has at some point. My point…celebrity’s shouldn’t be allowed to do more than 2 challenges in a row. Bored.com!!! 81.129.120.109 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

The "Created by" section is not accurate. Four people are recognized as having created the original format by ITV - Natalka Znak, Brent Baker, Stewart Morris and Jim Allen. Richard Cowles, Alex Gardner and Mark Cowley have worked on the production but did not create or develop the format. Goonerjag (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The phrase

I think there should be a list of participants who said the phrase "I'm a celebrity get me out of here" during a task. I believe the reason for the show title is the participants want to avoid saying that phrase. I also think there should be a list of participants who quit their tasks without using the phrase. (78.17.191.243 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC))

I'm a celebrity africa

Is myleene glass simple 77.75.244.19 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Series overview start date 19 November Tbrookes.23 (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I Am a (would-be) Celebrity - Get Me a Contract!

Instead of reading like some public relations press release, might not this article say that this is a nasty game show that plays to the worst side of viewers nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.242 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

Jamie Lynn was on the Home team not the away team. FraezyWaezy (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done MSalmon (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Voting during the final

The final starts with three celebrities. The article should explain if one round of voting determines the ranking of those three or if the day's voting determines who is third and then a short voting round whilst the programme airs decides the winner. Perhaps this has altered over the serieses. Ralph Corderoy (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)