Talk:The Crystal Maze

Split out design/production detail

Hi, I've "been bold" and launched into splitting this article into two. I believe in so doing I have mostly addressed the "overly detailed" concern about the main article. I hope everyone is happy. It strikes me by the way, the main article has too little information about the games themselves!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmch83 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Episode list

A few years ago, I tried adding an episode list (contestants names, crystals won, dome performance, etc) but was told that such information was not entirely necessary (in part due to its' sheer size). However, other lesser known/popular shows (e.g. Total Wipeout) have a full episode list on their article as opposed to TCM's cult status ("greatest UK game show of all time" in 2006 on ukgameshows.com). Is it worth adding an episode list now? Either in 'new article' or collapsable form'? I'm not talking anal detail but enough to sum up an episode. Any thoughts? Thanks :) db1987db (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2010 revival

Please DO NOT add any information which has not been offically confirmed (i.e. by ITV). Any unsourced/uncited additions will be removed. A revival has been rumoured for years now and this rumour should be taken with a pinch of salt until something more solid is announced. Thank you :) db1987db (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pub games machine

"Arcade game" doesn't really describe the Crystal Maze pub game (shown on this page: http://www.chatsworth-tv.co.uk/news.htm). I'm not sure there is a more appropriate Wikipedia page which does describe these sorts of games (similar to the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" pub game if you have seen that). Richard W.M. Jones 15:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link down at the moment, but found in Internet Archive. That page doesn't make it clear that there are two different Crystal Maze gambling machine games. One was on a standalone machine with a trackerball; the other is a purely touch-screen game found on itbox and the like. -- Smjg 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blackpool pleasure beach game

There was a Crystal Maze game on Blackpool pleasure beach in summer 1992 - where you actually went round the zones, played games, and collected (virtual) crystals. But I can't remember enough about it to put it into the article. Any info would be well received! NickF 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There was indeed, I remember playing it in the early nineties - individual rooms in the zones where you played each game. I remember swinging across a pit to collect things, and also a giant version of put the balls in the holes on a plate type game. Finally being collected by someone and taken to the dome to collect gold credits bynpressing crystal buttons on the sides of the dome when they were lit, and losing them when you pressed them when they were not lit. I remember we didnt win - lol

Actually, it was at Blackpool's Sand Castle (the indoor water park), located where the Grosvenor casino is now. It had various computer controlled games. The final crystal dome was a small version of the real one, with the inside covered in buttons which you had to press when they were lit. I can't remember much more than that though. Petersen 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a Crystal Maze attraction like the one you described near Oakwood Theme Park in Wales. The official site is http://www.cc2000.info/, and there are some pictures at http://www.themeparkreview.com/uk2006/oakwood/oakwood4.htm. Although I have never seen the show, I got to try out this attraction this past summer. The attraction consisted of going through different zones and collecting crystals through team puzzles. The final dome was as described as above - pressing the buttons that lit up. WillMcC 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There was another attraction exactly as described next to the Magnet Leisure Centre in Maidenhead, Berkshire. _TheIslander 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't much, but, on the online MMORPG, Runescape, an NPC who was guarding the entrance to a trap filled maze was named Brian 'o' Richards, in reference to the host of Crystal Maze.

Sandcastle Blackpool: Crystal Maze

On entry you registered your "team" and were given a card to carry around with you. When you were ready you put your card into the machine and the "host" which was a computerised face that wasn't like the host of the show greeted you, introduced himself and explained the game. He then told you where you were to go first and you would follow the signs into the zones. In each game, to collect the crystal(s) you had to press a button which would light to signify you had completed a challenge. Each crystal gave extra time in the dome.

There were three possible game modes: "Beginner" mode would give you 1 possible crystal per game, "intermediate" 3 crystals, and "expert" 6 crystals. You would lose the same corresponding number of crystals if you lost a challenge. There wasn't such a concept as a "lock in" where you could leave team members in exchange for crystals if you lost a challenge.

MEDIEVAL: Suit of armour game: One of your team would build a suit of armour on a computer by selecting the pieces shown in a picture.

FUTUREZONE: Timebomb: A mathematical game where the object was to answer questions (the answers were numbers) and advance towards a realistic looking timebomb which actually showed a countdown. To deactivate the bomb you had to remember the numbers that were the answers to each question. Once inputted, the "crystal" button would light up which you had to press to get the crystal.

Lander: A simulator where you had to land a lunar lander on a moon/asteroid successfully

Pole game: You entered a room with flourescent poles hanging from the ceiling. The crystal button would light up and the object was the navigate between the poles to reach the crystal, without touching the poles.

AZTEC WORLD: I can recall 3 games but i remember there being 4 Snake pit: You entered a room with a small "pit" in front of you, the screen for the game shows that it is a snake's nest. the object is to swing across the pit a certain amount of times to activate the crystal. You had to press a button at either side of the pit to register you crossing.

Cave game: One of your team climbs into a small hole like a cave where they had to put their hand through holes and guess what they could feel. Another member of the team would be outside and would select each item on a computer screen.

Aztec puzzle game: One member of the team would climb up a ladder and another would be at the bottom. On 2 separate computer screens they had to swap pieces and build a puzzle each. *edit - I believe that this game was a simulation of the real Crystal maze "blowpipe" game where the person would have to be guided as to which pipes contained the most sand.

INDUSTRIAL ZONE: Tarantula's Lair. One of the team climbs into the "lair" and has to climb netting a ropes over a mock giant tarantula and find the crystal button.

Magnetic game: Drop steel balls into a hole in the middle of a glass dome.

Caterpillar game: At the top of the zone was a game very similar to "snake" where you had to guide a caterpillar to eat the correctly coloured mushrooms before the time ran out

CRYSTAL DOME: Once you had been in the game for a certain amount of time (the quicker you complete games the more games you get to play), you are told to report to the crystal dome. Based on the number of crystal you win, just like the show you get a certain amount of time. In the dome there are red and green buttons. the green buttons were the crystals, the red were skulls. You lost points every time you pressed a skull. There were no prizes as it was all about getting a high score and having your team name proudly displayed on the leaderboards.

There was at least one competition where teams won trophies and prizes (such as a replica crystal). The competition was split into adult and under 16 teams.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.143.162 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

References

The series was spoofed in Maid Marion and her Merry Men and also in The Mary Whitehouse Experience, (The Making a Cup of Tea Game). I found the sketch at http://www.obsess.com/junk/whitehouse.html

CAPTION: "THE CULT EXPERIENCE" 

Dennis  The Crystal Maze.  Now THERE'S a cult programme.  In fact, what's 
  cult about is the contestants, and the fact that some of them seem to 
  be almost unbelievably stupid. 

[Cut to mock up of Crystal Maze] 
O'Brien  Alright, come along, come along..  Come along, along.. Right, now, 
  here we are in the Industrial Zone, how many crystals have we got? 
  [he is now surrounded by a crowd of yuppies] One. [they all cheer]  Thank 
  you, that's RUBBISH.  Right.  Who wants to play a game? [he points to 
  someone at random.  They all jump up and down.]  Now what sort of game 
  do you want? 
Player  Err... 
O'Brien  An incredibly easy game? 
Yuppies  Yes! Yes! Yes! 
O'Brien  Right, ok, this is the Making A Cup Of Tea game, you've got two 
  minutes, in you go now. 
Yuppies  Go! Go! Go! 

[O'Brien opens a door and lets the player in.  Inside is a table with 
various teamaking instruments on it.  Music plays (it's not the real Crystal 
Maze music, obviously, because Crystal's an ITV programme, and MWE is on BBC) 

Player  I can't see what I have to do! 
Yuppies  Err... put the cup.. in the teapot! 
Player  It won't fit! It won't fit!  I can't put it in! 
Yuppies  Err, try putting the milk in the pot and dunking. 

[Cut to O'Brien outside, just like the programme; he shakes his head, then 
we cut back to the room; the player is frantically trying to drink out of 
the teapot spout] 

Player  No! No! 
Yuppies  I think you have to pour out a cup of tea! 
Player  [thinks for ages..]  I'M COMING OUUUUT!!!! [he runs out of the 
  room back to the yuppies, they all jump up and down shouting "yes"; O'Brien 
  addresses the camera again] 
O'Brien  I once wrote a hit West End musical, you know.  You don't catch 
  Andrew Lloyd Webber having to put up with this crap.

Cultural references

The revised reference to dick and dom is long enough, many thanks to User:Shaft121 for adding it but please dont revert again. Have a look at the other references and the rest of the page in general and you'll see what I mean. It isnt important to describe in minute detail what D&D actually did, a very brief description and why it is significant is more than adequate. I suggest you add more detail on the talk page if you wish. You could also use edit summaries if you want to be taken more seriously. I would also refer you to the editing mantra, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". There is a big difference between editing and reverting. Deiz 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any resemblance to LOTHT?

Even though I haven't seen the show myself, I have seen a similar show where the games take place at a certain location, and also a game show: Legends of the Hidden Temple from Nickelodeon. I am starting to see some similarities between these two, but does anyone who have seen either or both? --Seishirou Sakurazuka 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ocean/Aquatic

I watched, to some extent, probably every series that was broadcast on Channel 4, and definitely every series since the Ocean zone was introduced (by which time I was following it closely). There, it was always called Ocean - there was never a zone called Aquatic. If ever it was, then the series being broadcast on Challenge TV must be one that never made it to Channel 4.

Also, in several places it talks of a "Future" zone. It was always called Futuristic when I watched it. -- Smjg 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oceanic zone was originally the industrial one. There was never an aquatic one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.126.193 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

There was never an Oceanic zone when I watched it either. -- Smjg 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Industrial until series 5 then it was changed to Ocean and was never ever renamed again. Although if the series wasn't canceled the Futuristic zone would have changed its name. Unisouth 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear this up, the Futuristic zone was always called Futuristic, and the Industrial zone changed to Ocean at the beginning of series four. This was also Richard O'Brien's last series. Goldbringer 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The purported alternative name "Future" has come back again. I see now a mention that it was renamed "Future" for a one-off special. Even so, labelling it "Futuristic/Future Zone" in the breakdown of zones is only going to confuse people, and so I'm removing it. I think it suffices to mention the renaming for a one-off special where it's mentioned. — Smjg (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

ftn

The show is going to be reshown on ftn starting 1st Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.90.17 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Crystal Maze cyberdomes

According to the article, the first five of these were in England and the sixth in Japan. It then mentions one in Wales. Is this a seventh, or is it (incorrectly) included among the five "in England"? You're playing with fire if you're suggesting Wales is in England! -Multivitamin 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't agree with it, change it! Thats what Wikipedia is about. Goldbringer 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know whether the one in Wales is an additional one or one of the original six, so I can't change it accurately. I was hoping someone else would know. -Multivitamin 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it...

"Most of the Cyberdrome Crystal Mazes have since closed, as children are no longer familiar with the show."

Is this Cyberdrome's excuse or the guess of whoever wrote it here? And did they really lose that much business since the people (whether born in the 50s or the 80s) who followed the show have aged? I'm especially surprised if young adults who remember the show and wanted to experience it had become that few and far between. -- Smjg 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice if someone could update with the info ive found on this page: http://alumni.ox.compsoc.net/~dickson/GS/TCM/TCCM.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.104.221 (talk) 2 March 2007

Sorry Mulitivitamin, I misunderstood your original point! Just thought it was another nationalist rant... Goldbringer 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited Cultural references

I took this like out as it doesnt really seem important enough to be considered a cultural reference and was added by someone at the college and seems like self-promotion.

'On May 11, 2007, the show will provide the theme for Pembroke College's annual summer ball. Attended by Richard O'Brien himself, the college will be divided into each of the Crystal Maze's four zones and themed accordingly.' --Neon white 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you there. 134.36.126.47 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mystery dames

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the mystery games are a class of their own, generally of some puzzle which involves finding clues to get the crystal - they may have had physical, skill or mental parts to them but it doesn't seem like 'mystery' means it is a random selection of the other three. "Games were classed as 'physical', 'mental', 'skill' or 'mystery' (the latter being one of the other three)." If this is the case then this needs changing. Fizzyfifi 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just worded badly. As i understand it, the mystery games were games that didnt fit into the other three catagories and possibly combined elements of the other three. More often than not they do seem to be puzzles similar to some mental games. --Neon white 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they were a bit of both, some mystery games were exclusive to the category, and others were taken from the other categories. -- Smjg 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I always figured it ment mystery for the players like saying "Pot luck" (also as often had mixed physical and mental meaning you cudnt just play safe and pick ya atheletic guy because you dont know whats coming) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.124.18 (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

Unsourced trivia removed from article:

Trivia

One memorable episode from series one when a woman fell in the thick black muddy water with an aplomb which had the crystal inside, that episode was first shown on March 22, 1990. Then another memorable episode from series two when before and after the credit start to roll a message said "In Loving Memory of Jacques Antoine" that was seen on June 6, 1991 but Jacques Antoine is not really dead.

The show was shot as a drama, with the actual games taking place on the first day. The contestants were then invited back to redo the games on the following day (without the presence of the presenter) to do pick-up shots and close-ups of the games. Thus explaining why there were shots of the interior of the Crystal Dome from the inside during the finale of each show.

The gold and silver tokens often had to be recut for each episode as the contestants would often take some home for souvenirs.

In the latter series, when the production moved to the Aces High Studios site, the surrounding aircraft hangars were still in use and production sometimes had to be stopped as planes were quite audiable going overhead. Although this was sometimes incorporated into the show if, say, the contestants were in the Aztec Zone; O'Brien on one occasion looked skyward and announced it was "Mumsy's drinks delivery coming in".

Host O'Brien was quite musical on his rounds, often producing a harmonica to play while the teams were embroiled in the games. On a few occasions there was a piano in the Medeval Zone where he'd bang out a tune for the audience.

There was a 'hand-over' scene between O'Brien and Tudor-Pole in the 1993 Christmas Special. The episode pre-titles featured O'Brien writing a note to the new keeper of the maze before getting on a motorbike with Mumsy to ride out of the Medeval Zone. A hand came into shot (Tudor-Pole's) and picked up the note just as the titles ran.

Deiz talk 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal by Deiz

Summary: "rm how-to guide about cyberdrome". Firstly, that wasn't a how-to guide. It was a list of differences between Cyberdrome and the show, IMO a perfectly valid set of information. Secondly, even if somebody thinks it's too much detail, removing it altogether is not the answer. We certainly should at least touch on the differences rather than leaving people to think it's more or less a replica. -- Smjg 13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If Cyberdrome is notable, by all means verify that with reliable sources. Right now you're treading some very tangential, trivial, unverified ground. Given that there were a grand total of 6 cyberdromes, 5 of which are now apparently closed, I think you're really pushing the definition of "encyclopedic" to the limits. In any case, unverfied information can be removed on sight and absent of sources a lot of this article could quite legitimately be removed. Don't get me wrong, I wrote a lot of this article, albeit a while ago, but have a far greater appreciation of how important sourcing on WP is these days. I'll give any interested parties a few days to source the article before having a look at the trivia and spin-off info again. Deiz talk 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first, what notability criteria can we use to assess Cyberdrome? I don't think how many there are/were is a criterion, at least in itself - for example, there is only one Alton Towers as far as I know. Moreover, why did somebody bother writing "Five of the first six locations" if no more were subsequently opened? -- Smjg 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crystalmazebike.jpg

Image:Crystalmazebike.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Series 6 transmission dates

On the main page, it says Series 6 was transmitted from 18/05/1995 - 31/08/1995 but that doesn't make 13 weeks. Does anyone know what the transmission dates were and if there were any number of weeks break in between episodes, the reasons why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.2.107 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

List of games

Is it worth compiling a list of the different games that contestants face? --Cpl Syx (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, to be fair 81.151.16.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are four zones, with about six rooms each and six different series, plus games were changed mid-series, totalling around 277 games. I got this from one of the links on the main article, so maybe you could use that, bit it would be a very long list! Mpvide65 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

The painful description of the zones map ("a black background with zones formed from unfilled coloured lines...") makes baby rabbits cry. A screenshot would easily qualify as fair use here. Hint, hint. — Hex (❝?!❞) 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added maps for both series 1-3 and 4-6. The original descriptions were written by me before I registered as a user and I don't think they're that bad! Mpvide65 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should a "Controversy" section to the article be added?

Should a "Controversy" section be added to the article? I think so, because clearly, in a few episodes contestants audibly swear (e.g. in episode 2 of series 1, contestant Marcia Scott clearly said "shit" in frustration while trying to figure out where the first "S" in the word "Spaniards" went during the "Montezuma's Blocks" game, somewhere about nearly a minute into that game) without any censoring being applied, something that Challenge has not rectified. Besides, in such instances of swearing, Richard had to remind the contestant who swore that the show is for the family. Visokor (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly controversial. I thought you were going to mention cheating or some such. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad language is considerably controversial if such bad words are said on a family show. Visokor (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. At best it's trivia which doesn't merit an entry either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's mandatory to have such a section applied. And if u don't like it, contact Challenge.Visokor (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Why should I contact Challenge over your desire to introduce a section into Wikipedia? I still disagree. If you can reliably source articles which state swearing on The Crystal Maze is controversial, then you may have your mandatory segment and I will back down. Until then, there's no valid grounds for the addition. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How's this for proof? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E3XUgAtegA Listen close and listen hard during the "Montezuma's Blocks" game and you'll see. Visokor (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, and anyway we're not discussing the existence of swearing, but whether it counts as being controversial or not. Neither you nor I are reliable sources, so until you find such a source on the web stating that such behaviour is controversial it has no place on Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If this little argument isn't controversy, I don't know what is! (User:Frankymole) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.181.170 (talk)

"Non-free" image use

I have officially contested every single one of the attempts to delete the new photos I've added to this article - deletion attempts which explain the warning box at the top of the article. Having one photo of each of the two hosts of the show, one photo of each of the four zones in the show, and two example photos of contestant gameplay is not in any way excessive use. This article has been getting much better recently, I've personally put quite a lot of time into it, and it's a real shame that someone is trying to take the article backwards and trash my hard work for spurious reasons. If you agree with me, please add your voice to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_22 - thanks :) (Note I am not disputing the removal of the merchandise images.) Cmch83 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any editors who disagree with you are also welcome to weigh in... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Separate to the attempt to physically delete the images from Wikipedia's servers, someone has now taken it upon themselves to just remove all the image links from the article itself, including all bar one of those which were already there before this week. I am undoing this because I feel this is, at least, premature. I've already objected to the deletion of most of the images on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 22 and I've clearly stated reasons in each case. If you believe I am wrong that the use of these 'non-free images' is not excessive, please respond to the arguments I have made on that page. Specifically also:
  • Try to see the big picture here. This is an article about a well known (to this day), critically acclaimed, hugely commercially successful TV show which was a highly visual show. No, there aren't any "free" images available because the show was cancelled in 1995, basically pre-Internet - but how is it serving Wikipedia or its readers to have an article on this subject which is completely devoid of images???
  • It also feels like Wikipedia's abstract policies and procedures on "non-free images", put in place to avoid serious copyright thefts which could get Wikipedia into trouble, are being followed excessively blindly in this case. Many of the deleted images were official promotional photos distributed freely (in the normal sense of the word, not Wikipedia's) to media in the early 1990s - in other words it is absolutely certain that nobody is losing any money etc by their further circulation now!!!
  • If these images do get permanently removed from the article, there will never be any others to take its place. Wikipedia's policies on image removal explicitly assume that in most cases it would be possible to take new "free" photos now. Clearly however, you can't produce new copyright-free images now from a 1990s TV show.

And please - if you care about this article, contribute to the discussion. Cmch83 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They're non-free images. It dones't need to be explained any clearer than that. Because they're not in the public domain, until a rationale or license can be applied in each case, it's better and more profesional for Wikipedia to remove them pending an outcome. If the images were in the public domain, I'd be with you (albeit only just - a they are a tad escessive), but they're not, so I've removed them again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for this - it's helpful to me in understanding what I need to do. I admit I didn't take filling in the forms seriously enough when I uploaded the extra images. I've never done this before and I didn't realise it was going to be this controversial. I thought I'd already given further rationale on the 'images for deletion' page, but if I now go back and carefully fill in the "Non-free use rationale" form for each image, will you reconsider your position? Cmch83 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NFCC#8 non-free files are only used where absolutely required, and then kept to a minimum (WP:NFCC#3) This article was in clear violation of both rules. Werieth (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• • WP:NFCC#8 says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Once again - this was not just a TV show, but a highly visual TV show. And, no "free" images are likely to exist and cannot now be created - this is a really crucial point since the Wikipedia policies appear to assume that for most topics "free" alternative images could be found or generated. The images you have removed illustrate the key visual elements of the show - specifically (a) the four elaborate and character-filled zones which were a massive part of the show's appeal and fame, (b) the striking and often noted visual appearance of the show's two hosts, (c) two sample game rooms (images which are particularly useful for illustrating what a game room actually looked like, for two of the four categories of game in the show), (d) the show's main graphic identity for the final two-thirds of its run, and (e) the in-show map of the Maze, which was an exact representation of the real set and specifically illustrates the Maze's layout better than any number of words.

I really, truly can't understand how you can suggest that deleting all of these images is not in any way detrimental to readers' ability to fully understand the topic. No amount of text will serve the same function as well as these images. Have you ever actually watched the show? You haven't given any indication that you have. If you have not, I respectfully suggest that while you might be an expert on the Wikipedia policy in the abstract, you are not in a good position to judge its sensible and reasonable application in this particular real-life case.

(By the way, I do not object to the removal of three of the images - File:The Best of The Crystal Maze.jpg, File:Front Cover Crystal Maze CYOAB.JPG (both of very marginal relevance to the article), and File:I cracked the Crystal Maze 1990.JPG (which doesn't add anything if we keep the much more useful File:Promotional photo of Richard O'Brien hosting The Crystal Maze.jpg. Cmch83 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets break this down by image, and explain why each image must be included, and why not having the image is harmful to understanding the the article. Werieth (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me - this is the best way forward. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Files that where used

Why must each one of these files be included? Werieth (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: images that have been struck through have a consensus that they are not required for the article

• File:Crystal Maze Series 1.jpg
• File:Crystal Maze Series 3.jpg
  • From a random sample of entries for significant TV programmes, there appears to be a convention to use one image of the show's most recent graphic identity. Therefore I'm content for one of the two images to be lost, but only one, and at the moment it's the wrong one - the "Series 3" identity is obviously the more recent and used for the final four series out of the total of six. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree that title cards are standard, however it should be limited to one image. Werieth (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Cmch83 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:Promotional photo of Richard O'Brien hosting The Crystal Maze.jpg
• File:Ed Tudor-Pole introducing an episode of The Crystal Maze.png
  • Richard O'Brien's unusual physical appearance presenting the show was a striking, well remembered and definitely intentional feature, as is discussed in the article - particularly his shaven head and his fur coats. Ed Tudor-Pole intentionally continued the tradition of flamboyant host costumes - also discussed in the article. As also discussed in the article, the role of the host was particularly central to this programme throughout. Too much time has elapsed for any new 'free' photos to illustrate the hosts' looks at the time of the show, and crucially you wouldn't get the costumes. Both images need to stay, because any kind of "which host was better" judgment is a contentious area which Wikipedia should steer well clear of. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This can be replaced with text as you just have. Also there isnt a need for two examples of how the host dresses see WP:NFCC#3]. There is also zero sources backing up the importance of the costumes. Yes it may have been interesting, but how the host dressed is not critical to understanding the TV show. Werieth (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Sources definitely do exist evidencing the importance to the show of Richard O'Brien's appearance. I'll add references soon - later today hopefully. Just realised that this image also has the happy by-product of illustrating to some degree what Industrial Zone looked like!! I'm prepared to compromise by losing the Tudor-Pole image because I don't think I can back up its specific importance with sources (but if a suitable free image were to exist, it would be a different matter). Cmch83 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:Map zone 1 379x229.jpg
• File:Map zone 2 379x229.jpg
  • These maps appeared five times in every single episode of every series (i.e. they were very significant in the show's presentation), and were an exact representation of the real set - they specifically illustrate the Maze's complex layout better than any number of words. I suppose I could live with the older map being removed as long as the newer one stays. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That might be but why are both images required? Werieth (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Read again what I said - I didn't say both were needed. Cmch83 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:Sliding puzzle game on The Crystal Maze.jpg
• File:Target shooting game on The Crystal Maze.jpg
  • I genuinely don't believe that solely a text description of "the games" in the maze is very helpful to readers' understanding. I personally have spent quite a lot of time trying to massively improve the text in this section of the article, but it's a difficult task without some help from pictures. Describing the concept of a "game", a game room, and how a crystal was obtained, is one of those things which is much easier to understand with pictures than words. These two pictures are particularly illustrative of the key general points and they also specifically illustrate the text descriptions of target-shooting games and puzzle sliding games.
  • I accept that two is an arbitrary number, but the two images are of different 'categories' of games, and the games were the substance of the show. Two images feels like a good compromise to emphasise this centrality and illustrate enough of what they actually were. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Linking to Sliding puzzle while referring to the first game is all that is needed, there is even an animated example of how it works. The second is easily replaced with text, The event is that the player is sitting on a Mechanical bull while trying to shoot a target. Thus those two images improve the aesthetics of the article but are not required. Werieth (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry but you've not fully understood my argument. It's not really about the actual sliding puzzle or mechanical bull - no specific individual puzzle needs to be shown, since there were over 250 game designs during the show's run, although many other games didn't use familiar items of equipment with their own Wikipedia entry. It's more about the look of a 'game room' and, particularly, how the crystal was actually obtained by the contestant. This is such a clear case of "a picture is worth a thousand words", and the games were the substance of the show - this is probably the most important section of the article and placing a couple of images emphasises this. I've been working intermittently on greatly improving this article over the past few months, and one of the big editing challenges is to include the right amount of detail about the assorted design, presentational, human aspects of the show etc etc without burying the central importance of the games themselves. This is crucial to the reader getting a proper, balanced understanding of the show. Really, if only one image were to survive in the entire article, it should probably be one of these two (or any other image which equally illustrates game rooms). Can we compromise on keeping one of the two?? I'm thinking the mechanical bull one as it probably has marginally more visual impact. Cmch83 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:The Crystal Maze's Aztec Zone.jpg
• File:The Crystal Maze's Futuristic Zone.jpg
• File:The Crystal Maze's Industrial Zone.jpg
• File:The Crystal Maze's Medieval Zone.jpg
  • The ambitious, elaborate set was based on the the four very different 'zones'. Together with the hosts' appearance (but probably even more so), they were central to the show's celebrated visuals. Again, there are text descriptions but without the images, you'd probably derive a very hazy understanding of what the zones actually looked like and you wouldn't necessarily appreciate just how ambitious and elaborate they were for a 1990s British gameshow.
  • If not all four images - how would you draw the line? (In fact, there's still one missing, of Ocean Zone which replaced Industrial Zone, but I haven't seen a satisfactory image of any kind.) The zones each had equal status in the show, and you won't find any kind of consensus at all on which of the zones was the 'best' or most elaborate. Given how central the zones were to the show, the most pragmatic answer is one image of each of the four (or five, pending a picture of Ocean Zone). Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • These files easily fail WP:NFCC#3b as they are in extremely high resolution. You could easily pick one example to show the excessive detail that the shows set had. You dont need to know what every single zone looked like to understand the tv show. Werieth (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • OK. I hope everyone can agree that if these images were free, it would be appropriate for all four to stay, but as they're not free, I'm willing to agree on keeping one as a (frustrating) compromise. I'm going to strike Futuristic because of the inaccurately posed photo, Industrial because it only appeared in the first half of the show's run, and (more of a toss-up) Aztec because there isn't really a game room visible - i.e. leaving the Medieval Zone photo. Cmch83 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Front Cover Crystal Maze CYOAB.JPG
• File:I cracked the Crystal Maze 1990.JPG
• File:The Best of The Crystal Maze.jpg

• • As already stated I have no objection to the removal of these three images. Cmch83 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article too long?!?

I'm rather surprised to see this article has been marked up as "too long". While I've obviously put a lot of energy into growing this article in recent months, I've also been very careful to try to keep it tight, and I've deleted my own edits a number of times when on reflection they weren't tight enough. I've even separated out design and production detail sections into a separate article. Basically, I don't believe the article now is too long at all. It was a game show with an interesting conception, very complicated rules, a huge array of games to try to cover, a hugely ambitious and elaborate set, innovative hosting, lots of side stories, which generated an array of statistics, which was hugely successful and critically acclaimed and ran for six years, and spawned merchandise, replicas and assorted cultural references. Of course the Wikipedia article about it is going to be on the long side. But it's considerably shorter than the article about Coronation Street, I notice. Also - there is no website or book out there providing wide coverage of this show... this Wikipedia entry really is the definitive source of information about the show, with a lot of information that has been very painstakingly and very intelligently pieced together from a lot of different sources and edited down and organised well.

As I'm still working on the article, I'm quite keen not to have my future work deleted. Could the editor(s) with the concerns about length please help me (and us all) out by highlighting where you think the article could be pared down? Thanks a lot. Cmch83 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the real concern I had was "too detailed" rather than too long per se. Does an encyclopaedic article on this subject really need such trivia as what the contestants wore in each series, who 'Mumsey' was dating, or that O'Brien was going to play "excitement music"? Some of that may well be original research, too. Most of the detail can already be found from the single site that the article *extensively* references in any case. Perhaps I should have tagged the article as {{One source}}/{{primary sources}} or {{Overly detailed}}? I think I'll remove the "too long" tag and replace it with those... Stephenb (Talk) 06:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A few months later, I think I've basically done all I can do on this article now. I've cleaned it up quite carefully, removed a few of the more esoteric details and tightened up the length of the writing in places. I've also added good references from The Guardian and The Independent, and taken out one of the less "reliable" sources previously used. Anyone who puts back any tags regarding the sourcing of this article should really take account of the relative paucity of the source material. Although the subject matter is clearly notable, the Internet footprint for this early 1990s (i.e. pre-Internet) TV show is really limited... Theoretical best-case Wikipedia policy guidance really needs to be interpreted realistically when it comes to this particular article. Cmch83 (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Too many references and overly-detailed

The in-depth description of what looks like every game on the show is far too detailed for an encyclopedic overview of the show itself. In addition, the referencing for the aforementioned is nothing short of a mess. Despite every single game type having a seperate reference they all go to exactly the same website (just with a different "challenge" page), and the site itself is a non-notable fansite, which can't be used as a reliable source. References are designed to back up a point, not to list every challenge; case in point:

Many mental games required some kind of logical pattern to be correctly constructed, most commonly from either tiles, pieces, cubes or sliding disks provided.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]

As such, I'll go through the games section and trim it down to provide an overview of the types of challenge for the four types. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Kudos for that. This entire segment is far too indepth for anyone but the ardent fans of the show, and WP isn't a fansite. Thumbs up for this work :) Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done the above, and also done a reorganisation for clarity and readability, and merged the overly-detailed sections into the top section, "Format". SynergyBlades (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No Crystal for old Time Lords

The Guardian is reporting that David Tennant is not hosting the revival, contrary to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.11.108.74 (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The lede is far too long

It's supposed to give a short overview in one or two paragraphs, but this repeats information found in the main body of the article and is 5 paragraphs long. It need trimming right back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.29.194 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of giving the page a massive overhaul.Emrabt (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is my suggested idea, reordered the layout, removed repeated content and tidied a few things up. Test Page input welcome. Emrabt (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

as a first draft I like it but the formatting is a wrong in places, the first half of the page is much better, IMO it flows better. @Neverrainy: You've done a lot of work on the page recently, you might want to take a look at this suggested layout.Jasonandyawegunorts (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Much Better than the current layout Dogmenofthemoon (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Useful resource

This BBC article is really fascinating and contains a lot of info on the design that goes into the zones and how they were built so I thought it would be useful for someone to expand the article! Good luck!

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40354288 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find! I've sourced some bits on the page using this. 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrabt (talk • contribs)

jailer

should we mention the Jailer from the celeb special this Friday gone? Visokor (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to mention a character that's only appeared in one task in one episode. I think as it is characters like Mumsey are mentioned in too much detail in the article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree not to add, I also agree that while mumsey should have a section, becuase there is a lot of info about the creation of her character, Things like "The computer", "off screen characters" and "the random in game characters" really shouldn't be on the main page. It would be far better to mention them on the "episodes" pages in the season overview of the season the appear in.79.75.8.179 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Crystal Dome Section.

I think we need to start by explaining the issues we have with each others version of this section, My Main problem with this is in the first half which reads, in one long run on sentence which jumps from explaining the dome itself to explaining the Table the:

"This is designed to be a 16-foot-high (4.9 m) giant replica of one of the show's time crystals, and situated within the centre of the Maze, with a special table designed to hold the crystals that the team had acquired that the host stood close to, with each crystal's space having a light under it that switched off in the style of a count down to indicate when an increment of five seconds had passed."

I think we need to come to a compromise which breaks this down a little, while keeping all the information intact. I'm not liking the "in the style of a count down" because it's not in the style of, it actually is a countdown timer, we have described the "timers" the zones use, so calling this a timer fits with the rest of the article. Also Rather than special table, i tihnk we can come up with something elsea bit more discriptive, If the 'control panel' idea isn't liked perhaps.... Hexagonal table, or Hexagonal podium?79.75.0.42 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Other off-screen characters

Hello! Where do we put the likes of Ralph the Butler whose character is mentioned by Richard but not seen? --195.89.49.9 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere. They are parts of the back-story of the supporting character, Mumsey. There is nothing notable about discussing them outside of the sub-section of Host that details them, albeit in a simple amount of detail. GUtt01 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the mumsey section, there is no need to expand beyond this. they were characters Richard made up over 20 years ago and are not needed in the current article. 79.75.0.42 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Heather Grimes

should Heather Grimes be mentioned regarding the revived series? she actually stated she'd competed in the original series once... Visokor (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible extra ads in revival series

Both the original and revival series was 1 hour including ads. The original series had between 14 and 16 games per episode, while the revival series has 10 games per episode. Does this mean that there are extra ads in the revival series? Mobile mundo (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the games are just longer. Could also be more stuff inbetween the games. 86.9.181.76 (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is more time spent in advertising breaks, this was confirmed in internet articles/journalism by the production company when explaining the revised format. Frankymole (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Show format in revival series

Just watching the crystal maze and browsing the article on it at the same time, I noticed this can't be correct:

"The number of games that can be played is reduced to 10 - two in the first and last zone, and three in the other two zones."

The last episode of the series has three games played in the first industrial zone: clocks, split guttering and crystal guide along the pipe. I don't know what the general formula is though.

It is always 10 games but you are right that it isn't always 2, 3, 3, 2. It is always 2 games in 2 zones and 3 games in the other 2 zones but the order varies. --Prh47bridge (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Filming

I suspect that at least some of this section refers to the original run, not to the revived version. For example, I would be very surprised if the budget for an episode is the same in 2017 as it was in 1990 but this section states that each episode has a £125,000 budget. An update is needed, either to introduce the facts for the new run or to make it clearer. --Prh47bridge (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Unshown / Missing episodes

There are three episodes recorded for the revived (Richard Ayoade-presented) series 1, which have not been shown on British television yet (as of October 2018). They were not shown as part of the 2017 run or in 2018, but have been mentioned on the Crytal Maze TV official Facebook page. Is it possible to show this somehow in the "number of episodes" table? Perhaps there needs to be a footnote, but I am not sure of the best way to present this information. Frankymole (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

   For what it's worth I've added a note to clarify the following: the teams involved are 'The Ali Family', 'The Sasani Family and Friends' and 'The Midwives'. They have all been broadcast in Australia and New Zealand, but there's still no official explanation for their omission here in the UK and no way to watch them online either. 2A02:C7F:64E:2700:F805:5E6E:7CB7:FB6D (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Update as of December 2020: the three 'lost' episodes have finally been broadcast on C4 in the UK as per the table in the article. 2A02:C7F:635:D300:48AF:D9DE:7B94:5A64 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Crystal Maze Theme

Despite the change I made being reverted, I' sure the correct spelling of Zack's surname is "Laurence". Even the end credits on the show spell it this way. Screenshot: http://imgbox.com/S8THzixX

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGlMjh5g4sc&t=2931 Crystal Maze official channel (©Banijay Group 2018): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Fj33A7O3kzdeXp0jVgi-g/about

Crystal Maze credits for Zack Laurence: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1289596/ https://licensingapp.unippm.se/#!/composers/Composers%20Q-Z/zack-laurence.aspx

Mike20021969 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Fort Boyard

So this article makes the claim that it was created after the producers had seen Fort Boyard (game show), and decided to make a British version. However the dates don't appear to line up. Crystal Maze first aired Feb 1990. Fort Boyard first aired July 1990. They can't have seen Fort Boyard first and come up with The Crystal Maze, the dates don't work. Can anyone explain what is going on here? I also noticed that on both articles the date and origins are not sourced, so I couldn't even check those. Canterbury Tail talk 20:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S. version

Nickelodeon has wrapped up filming the U.S. version and it has been reported that Adam Conover will be the Maze Master. Will a new page be created for this once a confirmation date for episodes have been released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.1.74 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Hosts

Should the host of the American version of the show be removed from this list/table? Nothing else in the article talks about the American version except in the specific section at the end and it looks out of keeping. The host of the French kids version isn't included in the list. Kelly elf (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The page for Fort Boyard, the original version of the show/format (with the C4 show becoming the Crystal Maze as the fort wasn't ready for filming) has the French hosts listed, whilst the American version of the Crystal Maze is shown in the UK on ViacomCBS/Sky's Nick UK channel...so some British people will know about it, even if they are very young.

Revival Episode Listing

The channel 4 website shows 8 Series with the Christmas Specials being seperate. Source: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-crystal-maze/episode-guide

Under the IP address 14.202.197.217 (19th Dec 2020) I edited the Revival episode listing to reflect this. I made it chronological order, proper series/episode numbering (to match channel 4) and made the transmission section as a whole into a single column for less clutter. The transmission dates themselves where never changed.

These have now been reverted back to non-chronological order, series and episodes grouped together oddly, and two columns which squishes the tables together.

I’m unsure as to why this was reverted as I think my edit was accurate, sourced, easier to read and in keeping with other episode listings on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobgloves (talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a complicated mess but the current arrangement reflects the episodes grouped together by their production runs (mostly defined by which zones/ games appear) and then in their UK broadcast order (this is a UK tv show, so UK dates take precedence); basically Channel 4 ordered 3 production runs of the revived series (20, 12 and 13 episodes respectively) but then broadcast them in the UK in various blocks split between celeb and civilian episodes (this relates to the 'missing episodes' section above as three were produced for 'Series 1' but weren't aired in the UK until 3 years later), international broadcasts have kept the episodes in their original 3 production runs arrangement. Of course the US version tramples all over this by reusing games from all 3 revival production runs, including a couple newly converted from Medieval to Eastern.

I do agree that some sort of reference could/ should be made to how C4 lists the new series, but it's how to do it without making the page a mess.2A02:C7F:635:D300:E92E:EEB4:F6FE:A835 (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like this? Obviously the added ref can be tweaked a little bit:

Series
Production Series	C4/UK Broadcast Series	Start date	End date	Episodes	Editions	Presenter
1	1	23 June 2017	13 July 2017	20	Celebrities	Richard Ayoade
	2	25 August 2017	13 October 2017		Civilians
	Xmas	14 December 2017			Christmas
	3	15 April 2018	6 May 2018		Civilians
	7	15 November 2020	29 November 2020
2	4	8 June 2018	6 July 2018	12	Celebrities
	5	20 July 2018	24 August 2018		Civilians
	Xmas	26 December 2018			Christmas
3	6	21 June 2019	26 July 2019	13	Celebrities
	Xmas	23 December 2019			Christmas
	8	3 December 2020	31 December 2020		Celebrities

Any other suggestions would be welcome.2A02:C7F:635:D300:E92E:EEB4:F6FE:A835 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The table is fantastic. Between Channel 4’s website now and IMDb (who seems to have the episodes quite screwed up), my head was spinning.

Without a citation, I think your Reference would classified as a Note?…

I hope you post this. Thanks for making it! LemonPokeCake (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

References