Talk:50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article candidate This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is part of WikiProject Television Game Shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to game shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Someone has also started another page under The 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time. There do not need to be two competing pages. One needs to be redirected into the other. I prefer this page. It looks much better than the other page. Dbart 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They both should stay. The 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time is from a different company. (TV Guide, not GSN) 209.158.43.115 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Spoilers and this list

This is an encyclopedia. The suppression of "spoiler" information is not acceptable. I have added the spoiler template in the appropriate place. Erechtheus 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This isn't just some random person's opinion -- it is a list that has been compiled by the network that serves the niche in question. I have added future airdate details and will now remove the deletion template. Erechtheus 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the the keep side won 18-6. By AfD standards that's a whomp for the keepers. Casey Abell 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List order

Please try to keep the list from fifty to one. That's how the countdown is announced and, generally, that's how a countdown should be ready. Also, please don't put any numbers up until the airdate is revealed, so there isn't just a bunch of blank numbers. - Chad1m 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...depending on availability

I removed that clause from the top section of the article because it would appear inaccurate due to GSN choosing not to air Beat the Clock. They air it at 3 AM many nights, so it would appear that they would have the rights to include it. I'm sure there is a way to describe the criteria that seem to be in place for the air/don't air decision, but I don't know how to put it at the moment. Any ideas? Erechtheus 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's beyond explanation. I'm rather confounded myself. As was discussed on another forum, there is one 30-minute episode of "Greed" which has never aired on GSN due to scheduling issues. Seems that would have been a good time to put it on. I know the ep we got was fairly noteworthy, but short-shrifting Beat the Clock is ridiculous. Lambertman 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoey Mitchlll

Just a heads-up: the spelling of Scoey's last name as shown - with three "L"s - is correct. Lambertman 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDB the spelling is "Scoey Mitchell", and they note that he was "sometimes credited as Scoey Mitchlll". --Heath 69.174.67.197 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shop 'Til You Drop episode

In the article it used to say that the episode was chosen probably because one of the contestants was named Elvis after Elvis Presley, but one thing I noticed was that during the True/False round in which they rotate, the winning team got a very high score, one of the highest I've ever seen in that game. Does anyone know if that was a record??? mabye that was the reason it was shown; unfortunately, I missed the intro to the show by Bil Dwyer so I don't know. If anyone knows, however, and it is a record, I think that should also appear in the article. --Andresg770 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a record, it certainly belongs. Even if it isn't a record, a mention that it was an unusually high score might be okay. I put the Elvis bit in there because that's what Dwyer's intro mentioned. Erechtheus 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The entire episode selection seems a bit flakey; The Blockbusters episode had a notable contestant, but she's certainly not the most notable, and it wasn't her recordbreaking win or anything... seemed like a pretty average episode. From what I've seen of the series, every time I catch it on GSN, the champions are on a 6-time champion streak. They had a lot of longrunning champs, and I could be wrong, but I don't think she was the longest or the highest paid. Either way; odd selection. BTC's exclusion was also odd - would have especially been good advertising for their recently resurrected 3am run of the show. TheHYPO 09:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the reason she was chosen (though it was not explained) is that she made the other game show appearances in addition to being one of the bigger winners on Blockbusters. You're right, though -- that game was really good for the repeat contestants. It was an odd format, though -- I could have sworn I saw an episode earlier this year when I started watching GSN more often where they didn't get to a Gold Run the whole episode. Erechtheus 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tableage

I've been working on table-izing all of this at User:Amnewsboy/GSN50... I haven't included the Wiki links to what's already listed, tho. I'd like to know what y'all think before I paste it in there. Amnewsboy 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice table! This definitely would make the article more professional. If you need some more material to fill in the comments section, the long thread about the series on Matt Ottinger's game show board and the other thread on the GSN board might give you some ideas for additional comments. You have to wade through a lot of opinions verging on flames, though, to get to factual material that might (and I repeat might) be of some use in writing NPOV comments on each show.
And by the way, given what I know of the extreme traditionalist tendencies of both boards from having posted on them, the threads have been very, very predictable in their comments on each show and the series in general. Though there have been a few surprises. Who woulda thunk that Matt Ottinger himself would have a few kind words for the $1.98 Beauty Show? Village curmudgeon Chris Lemon is all over him for that opinion, though in a more respectful manner than usual. Matt's the moderator, after all (wink).
A disclaimer: I posted a note on Matt's thread. Lemon had mentioned me in his usual less-than-flattering way. I played softie in response, and even commented that this article was up for deletion, though likely to be kept. Casey Abell 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a personal opinion, that I'd like to see that table made nicer than the default HTML table - a thin-line table would be nicer (see List of The Simpsons episodes for a more complex table but more for the format of the single-line borders and nice shading and colour coding (could alternate two colours every time you skip to the next featured date to show which countdown items were in the same episode). TheHYPO 09:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Won't make a habit of this, but the reaction on Matt's board to last night's (August 1) programming was again more predictable than a solar eclipse. They loved it. Casey Abell 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beat The Clock?

Anyone have any notes on what they featured for BTC? I missed that episode and would like to know what they said about the show and/or if they showed any interesting stills or clips. Thanks TheHYPO 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing notable if you ask me. I don't have the episode any longer, but there were no clips, the stills seemed run of the mill, and I don't recall them giving us any really notable trivia. It was just the standard "wouldn't have Fear Factor" sort of speech you also heard on Gameshow Marathon. Erechtheus 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the recap - my pvr ran out of space that night ;) TheHYPO 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of List?

There has become disputed the "quality" of this list. User:Quotes22 is reverting edits to articles about all of the game shows listed on this list to delete any mention of their being on this list, claiming that the list is commercial and not notable. My response to this would be that the list is as commercial as TVGuide's lists or anyone else's, As for the notability of the list, many of the articles for shows in question are not that long to begin with and any accurate fact, including the ranking of the games on this list should not be discounted. It's not like this is an internet list - it's a weekly series devoted to listing, put on by a network that specializes in game shows. That's my opinion. Quotes22 is ignoring attempts to discuss the matter, so I thought I'd get third party opinions, and if you agree, keep an eye out for continued deletion of ranking comments in the game show articles on this list. TheHYPO 11:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to discuss why I feel that this list has little merit. And this is what I think. First off, I'm trying to help improve the quality of various niches of articles that I see on wikipedia. Many (especially the game show articles) have clunky writing, unnecessary details, and overall cruft. If you want the game show articles to be taken more seriously and not have quality warnings on them at all times, you need to remove facts that aren't quite as notable as the others. Just because something is a fact, does not mean it must be included in an article. An article here is supposed to be concise and give a general overview of a topic.
I'm not sure if I can find an official guideline on this, but making notice of whether a show or person is on a commercially made "Best of" list is strongly discouraged. It's just filler and it makes WP look bad. I don't want to cause a violation of WP:BEANS, but as an example, I will use the list of American Film Institute's 50 Greatest Screen Legends, which is a much more publicized list than this is. In that list, the only one of the 50 film legends that has a link to that list is Judy Garland.
I just have a really hard time considering this a high quality, ligitimate list. It's just a summer filler series. The list is going to have some bias based on that GSN has made the list based on shows that they have the rights to air. If this list was not made by GSN, there would be no way that Whammy!, a short-lived remake of a cult classic would even be considered to be on the top 50, and not even the top 100. I request that to improve the quality of the articles and WP, that the references to this show be removed from their respective pages. --Quotes22 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Critical and popular reception is an extremely important topic for articles to cover, and in the case of Game shows -- expecially more obsure, older ones like $1.98 Beauty Show, there isn't much critical reception out there. (Unlike for a well-known actress, say.) If we had "better" lists or "more reliable" critics' voices to add instead, than that argument would make sense. But we don't.
Also, look at an article like Citizen Kane -- it rightfully spends an entire paragraph detailing various "top n" lists that include the movie. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there ARE bad decisions on the list from GSN, but for better or worse, GSN has authority roughly equivalent to what AFI has for film -- agree or disagree, they are about as authoritative on the subject as an institution can be. I don't see the subject as "cruft" - even though I can see how that opinion could be reached.
Unrelated, I think we (as a community) would rather have discussed it first before the edits happened, but that's my 2¢. For those more famililar with Wiki policy, can we obtain a consensus vote here, or do we have to go someplace special to do that? Amnewsboy 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This would be a great place, and I think we're getting pointed to it well enough, but we don't vote (m:Voting is evil), we discuss. Straw polls can be a part of the discussion, but they shouldn't be the main tool. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that GSN would be in the same boat as producing a list like this than the AFI for this reason, AFI is a non-profit, governmental organization, not owned by a film studio and likely not influenced by any studio. GSN is a corporation (or owned by one, however you want to put it) and the list is highly influenced by shows that GSN has the rights to air or to an extent, shows that they have produced in-house. And for saying that this list is used to gauge reception of the shows is not valid as well for reasons I have mentioned. They can say that television executives voted shows onto the list, but it's hard to determine if theat was done, or if it had any effect on the rankings. The important parts for a article about a game show are airdates, rules, hosts/announcers and notable episodes. Just by having the airdates of a show usually can explain the bulk of the critical/popular response for a show, as it is hard to find verifable information about the shows and we don't want original research of NPOV. --Quotes22 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because AFI is nonprofit and semi-governmental doesn't make its decisions any more definitive or unquestionable than GSN's or yours or mine. Some cynics might suggest that a nonprofit, semi-governmental bureaucracy's decisions would be more group-thinked, conventional and unimaginative than almost anybody else's. For instance, I think Citizen Kane is a preachy, overlong, overrated bore, and AFI thinks it's the greatest ever. But I agree that AFI's rankings are notable under WP:Notability (which I'll admit is not a formal standard, but it's a decent guide). And that's the real issue.
GSN is the only cable/satellite network in the U.S. devoted largely to game shows for adults. As a result, its programming decisions are notable in the world of game shows. Of course, you can disagree with those decisions, and you can say the world of game shows isn't much of a world to begin with. But within the game show genre, GSN's programming clearly meets any reasonable notability standard. After all, there's a whole lot of Internet chatter among game show fans about almost every decision GSN makes. If game show fans are taking note of this list—and believe me, they are, for better or worse—why can't Wikipedia take note that a game show has made the list? Casey Abell 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose a reliable source has taken note of this list? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Rooted around the Google news cache and found some newspaper stories noting the series. Here's an example. Whether you think newspapers, in particular the Washington Post, are reliable or not is your call. The story is on the Nashua Telegraph site but it's credited to the Post. (Okay, I'm treating the Telegraph as a reliable source for their credits.) Casey Abell 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I should note that as soon as they posted here, they went back and deleting all the references again, with a link to this discussion in the comments. They didn't even wait to see what response would be. I find this highly problematic. I've gone back, judging by the response in this discussion, and reverted the deletes. I don't think they get that they are virtually the only one who thinks the things should be deleted and that that doesn't mean they should go and do it. I'm not saying this discussion is definative, but at least wait until people have responded to you before making a decision. Either way, since the person hasn't replied on their talk page and only finally made a statement on here at the same time as reverting, my guess is that they only posted here thinking it would shut people up and that that's all it takes to justify the reverts they had just re-made without any discussion - some "resquest that they be removed". As mentioned above, the user is now deleting comcent's 100 greatest comedians mentions, and in game shows, also deleting TVguide greatest list mentions. TheHYPO 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
References to the AFI rankings are still around. At the very least, this is inconsistent. Seems like this editor has some kind of attachment to rankings by nonprofit, semi-governmental bureaucracies. Casey Abell 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Quotes22 wasn't in the mood to have a reasoned discussion after all, if you'll note the bon mot now on his talk page Lambertman 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
At least he's being honest. Casey Abell 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The user claims to have quit - their user page has been wiped with 'i quit'. However, an anonymous user, User talk:68.180.1.141 just did most of the same edits all at once, with the tag 'rv fancruft' and on one 'a few people disagreeing with me does not mean it should be included'. Quotes22 used 'rv, please stop adding unnotable fancruft' in Three's a Crowd (game show), so I'm not sure if this isn't the same user doing it. I've never heard of such words that he uses - fancruft? fanboi? TheHYPO 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, those are common words used by editors when they wipe content from pop culture articles. Looks like this editor may be honest but not particularly original. "Fancruft" is any material an editor doesn't want in pop cult articles. "Fanboi" is any contributor to pop cult articles who the editor doesn't like. Casey Abell 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that both of them have previously edited tons of articles related to professional wrestling -- and neither one of them seems to have a problem with unnotable commercial biased lists such as "PWI's 500 Greatest Rasslers Ever" being included on those pages... Lambertman 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So, now what do we do? Amnewsboy 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, we note that consensus on the issue seems pretty clear, and leave the list mentions in the various articles. If Quotes22 were to keep edit warring over it -- something I'm sure he won't do -- he would eventually face consequences for disruption. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say a few things before I stop editing here. There are just too much politics going on and a bunch of editors that just want to destroy and add cruft to what could be a great project. I ask of a few things, that I feel are resonable and should be considered:
1) Please wait until the list is totally completed and announced until more adding of this is done to other articles. It is not even halfway finished, so it is hard to tell how valid the list may be, this is a sufficient enough space for a list/program of the sorts. It does not need to be spread across 50 articles. Save yourselves some time here.
2)Get some feedback from people that are not game show fanatics. A straw poll of 5 GSN fans is not a proper way to gain consensus. Including something just because it is a fact does not mean it is necessary on WP.
3)Realize that no matter what way you look at it, this list has a strong bias to it, reguards to original productions on GSN or shows that have aired there. It is obviously made more based on program scheduling than merits themselves. Do you think an AFI-like association would put Whammy or Hollywood Showdown in a list like this? Just think about these things, it will help everyone in the long run. --Quotes22 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were sick of dealing with us "idiots." Lambertman 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The list exists. It is being put on by a cable tv company. There is some bias, as exists in any ranked list, even ones compiled by voting or by "independant" bodies. I don't think the list has to be completed. If when the list is completed, Chain Reaction, GSN version is voted #1, maybe there is case for discussion here that the list is biased beyond reason, but you have no reason to assume that in advance. I mean, you deleted references to the ComCent 100 comics list even after it was aired entirely, and ComCent doesn't seem to have massively biased their list - Pryor, Carlin, Bruce, Allen, Rock, Martin, Dangerfield, Cosby, Barr, Murphy... I don't think they produce any of those top10 artists, and I think there are cases to be made that they are arguably considerable as top 10 material. Yet you still delete the mentions of the list from people's pages.
>>Get some feedback from people that are not game show fanatics
We have 5 fanatics supporting us. So far you have NOONE supporting you. I think you're the one who should get some consensus on your side. Noone has said this list is UNBIASED. That's why it is clearly indicated that this is GSN's chosen list. Not voted, not independant. GSN's List. It's in the name, and every thing you deleted said "was ranked on GSN's list". If readers are dumb enough to read that phrase not realize that it is in GSN's opinion, then I don't think they are smart enough to realize the implication of the list. All it is is a ranking. I don't think anyone is taking that list as a factual basis to consider it the xth best game show ever in society's opinion. As I said, I wholely agree that the list has some bias. Every list does. I doubt AFI would ever consider a movie like American Pie as a best ever movie simply because it's crude, but I bet you that there's a group of young society who think it's a lot better and more prominent than some of the lowest dozen movies on AFI's list. That doesn't mean that it's not a great movie, but I doubt they'd ever even consider it for the list. It's biased. I don't think bias in itself is a reason for deleting a reference to this list, as long as the fact that it is GSN's opinion is clear, which I think it is. Should those two GSN shows be on the list? I don't know. TVguide, who have no network bias include shows like "People Are Funny", "Ready...Set...Cook!", and "Shenanigans". I don't think those are necessarily more worthy of listing than either GSN show. When you get to the bottom 10 of the list, it's quite hard to judge shows. So yes, there' probably bias, and if those GSN shows made the top 10, I might agree that it's overly biased, but including them shows a mild self-bias that is implied from the fact that they made the list. I think I've repeated that enough times now.
I should also note. The list is "50 greatest game shows". There is no definition for that that is. It's not the best selling shows, or the longest lasting. It's "Greatest". That word, in itself, is opinion-based. It implies bias no matter who the listmaker is or what method is used to compile it. It's either going to be biased in opinion, or else based on a criteria which people could argue is not the right criteria to use and therefore is still biased.TheHYPO 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I am not please with the disrespect that I have been given by TheHYPO. I refer you to WP:DICK, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which you are violating by attacking me and not letting a fair consensus reach. I don't like you trying to say that no one agrees with me, so far, only about 5 others have commented on this, and this discussion has only been up for a day. You need to be patient and let things draw out. I gave three perfectly valid reasons as to why listing these things should not be considered. I'm just trying to make WP a better encyclopedia, that's all. I was doing this with good intent. I still think that a mediator and outside source should be used to determine the validity of the list and to whether it should be included in the disscussion. I will report you to the proper dispute avenue so that you will be punished for your actions. You need to have an open mind, be patient, and think about quality. The game show articles in general suffer from poor quality, redundant writing and cruft. Please consider what I have said and try to make WP a high quality place. --Quotes22 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He wasn't uncivil that I could see. And consensus is pretty clear so far -- the mentions should be in the articles. If consensus is later shown to be the other way, then they can be removed. There's no wikipedia policy problems with the mentions -- they certainly conform to WP:NPOV, so there is no reason that we need to rush to take them out now. And, by the way, I'm not a game show fanatic -- check my contributions. (Not that I don't like game shows, I do. Except for Wheel. And Deal or No Deal. Oh, and Greed. Greed was awful. Wait, where was I?) I only got into this because I happen to have $1.98 Beauty Show on my watchlist, and I only have *that* on my watchlist because it was on the special list of "pages nobody had on their watchlist" at one time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Quotes22 said: You need to be patient and let things draw out. This seems quite ironic to me given the haste with which he has apparently tired of dealing with "idiots", changed his mind about quitting, and gone about deleting these references in articles before he has seen the whole list. His impatience kind of destroys his own argument that anyone else should be patient. I'm all for the inclusion of these mentions in the articles when they add something to the article. If a show is brimming with similar facts, it might be overkill. I seriously doubt most of the shows in question have that sort of problem. There is a lot of cruft in game show pages (look at Playmania or Hannah Peckham). This list is not a cruft problem, though. Erechtheus 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true about doing this on an article-by-article basis, yes. There may be a few that receive little benefit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The biggest issue on my mind in this regard is what to do with shows that place on both this list and the one done by TV Guide. I would personally think making specific mention of the best placement and mentioning that it also made the other list would be the optimal way of using little space to convey the most information. Erechtheus 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel I've been rude, I'm sorry. I feel I've been pretty civil with someone who has been hasty to delete every mention of something he disagrees with that is not factually in error while ignoring attempts to talk to him/her on his/her talk page. Re: Both-listed entries, I'd simply enter something like:
[This show] was ranked xx on GSN's list of the 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time, while TV Guide ranked the show xx on their list of the same name.
I don't think this takes up an abundant amount of space. And it presents a more neutral stance than prensenting only one (to at least somewhat appease Quotes's's complaining by presenting two opposing points of view).
I also admit that this list has to be at least partially biased by the fact that they need to rank licensed to air/available series at least every 2 or 3 series (presumably including a number of the top 10) so that their episodes don't deteriorate to a long list of still photos. I think (assuming this holds out to be true by the end of the series), it deserves mention in some way, even though it's not exactly Neutral, or provable... I'm sure it's spinable into legitimate analysis, and bears noting in the article to indicate a potential source of bias. TheHYPO 04:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
PS:I'd also like to mention that College bowl, 39 on this list, is a whopping #3 on the TV Guide list. Similarly Queen for a Day is 42 here and 13 on GSN. Even if you think GSN is biased towards their own stuff, this is a notable difference and just goes to show how different listers can have totally different opinions. Which is why presenting different opinions can be a valid tool in showing critical opinion as positive, negative, or mixed. Masquerade party is #8 and I've never heard of it. I don't see any general reason for TV Guide to be biased to one show or another besides personal opinion of their editors. TheHYPO 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My top ten

Nobody asked, but Chris Lambert's user page got me thinking about my own list of the top ten. All these will probably turn up in GSN's countdown. We'll see...

MG, FF, Jeopardy, Pyramid, Lingo, WoF, TPiR, Millionaire, IGaS, WML

Tried to be fair to all eras and even picked a couple shows (TPiR, WML) that aren't wild personal faves of mine. Casey Abell 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While I was at this, decided to add another tier for a top twenty. Don't worry, I'm not going down to fifty...
WBSM, TTTT, Russian Roulette, DoND, H2, LMaD, College Bowl, Password, Newlywed Game, BtC
Again tried to be fair to all eras and included a couple shows (H2, LMaD) that aren't personal favorites at all. Several of these have already turned up on GSN's list, and the rest will probably show up sooner or later. Casey Abell 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Lingo showed up at #16, to extremely predictable groans from the diehard traditionalists on Matt Ottinger's board and the GSN board. Those boards don't exactly specialize in surprises. Anyway, Lingo at #16 means that Russian Roulette probably won't make the list at all. Too bad, because RR was a lot better show than many of the dull oldies beloved by the diehards. Clever challenge format, super-competent host, great exit gimmick, fast-paced suspenseful bonus round. Casey Abell 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A guy on the GSN board posted this guess for the top ten, now that we've done the first forty: 1 Match Game, 2 Wheel of Fortune, 3 Family Feud, 4 Jeopardy!, 5 The Newlywed Game, 6 The Dating Game, 7 The Price is Right, 8 Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, 9 ($20,000) Pyramid, 10 Let's Make a Deal.
The exact order is anybody's guess, as is the version of Pyramid. But I agree these will be the selections. So it looks like GSN agrees with me on seven of the top ten. Either great minds think alike, or fools agree with fools. And somebody on even the tradition-bound GSN board lamented the absence of Russian Roulette from the top fifty. Yep, that's a sad omission. Casey Abell 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of Russian Roulette, (I admittedly haven't heard of a half dozen of those on the list as well) so I can't say that I blame them for not including it. I would have to guess (just a guess) that Price Is Right will be far higher than 7 - probably in the top 3. As for wheel over jeopardy, jeopardy has spawned classroom versions, hundreds of parodies and pop culture references, that classic music, and the ken jennings mass of hysteria. I'd have to argue for Jeopardy to beat wheel by quite a bit. Match Game being #1 wouldn't shock me seeing as how it's GSN who constantly air the show, but I certainly would have to put other shows above it (I'm guessing the #1 show has to be something they are allowed to air too, which could result in match game). The feud beats the match game for me. Everyone knows the Feud - "Survey says". Until I got GSN, I knew very little about the match game. TheHYPO 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Anybody that wants to follow my new Top 50 list is invited to watchlist my Userpage and compliment or bash it on my talk page. :) Lambertman 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I like your inclusion of American Gladiators, even though it stretches the definition of the genre a little. But as you probably know from my occasionally bumpy ride on Matt's board, I'm a stretch-the-genre, inclusionist (warning: wikitalk) kind of guy when it comes to game shows. I'm afraid the other four choices are unfamiliar to me except Three on a Match, which I really didn't care for.
To break my promise, I'll complete my own top fifty with thirty more shows. I'm going super-traditional to avoid any screaming arguments above what is and isn't a game show. Okay, there's one semi-exception, which you should be able to spot. In no particular order...
You Don't Say, Tattletales, Blockbusters, History IQ, Truth or Consequences, Two for the Money, Queen For a Day, Card Sharks, Supermarket Sweep, Whammy, Scrabble, The Name's the Same, Remote Control, Cram, Weakest Link, Twenty-One, Concentration, Win Lose or Draw, Love Connection, Joker's Wild, Dating Game, Tic Tac Dough, Hollywood Showdown, Dog Eat Dog, Inquizition, Treasure Hunt, Press Your Luck, The Gong Show, Greed, Name That Tune
Again tried to be fair to every era and included a number of shows that aren't personal likes. There's a pretty big overlap with the GSN list, but several differences. Oddly, I've included three GSN originals—RR, Cram and Inquizition—that didn't make their own list. Casey Abell 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just remembered Who Do You Trust, the ancient Johnny Carson interview/quiz vehicle that I purely loved as very little kid. Can I make it a top 51? Casey Abell 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And, gasp, somehow I left out You Bet Your Life, while including the Carson and Shriner imitations. Make it 52. Casey Abell 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This ain't easy, is it, Casey? :) Lambertman 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, not at all easy. If I had to slam it down to fifty, I'd kick out Hollywood Showdown and Name's the Same to make room for Carson and Groucho. Casey Abell 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments regarding citing this list

This is a dispute about whether the results of this list should be posted in the articles on the game shows listed. For example, in Queen for a Day:

GSN ranked Queen for a Day #42 on its list of the 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time.

-- 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by those previously involved in the dispute

The original complainant's issue with citing the results of this list are that the list is not "legitimate" and is "biased". My response to this is that "legitimacy" of the list is completely in the eye of the beholder. Bias will exist in every list, and "greatest" is a completely subjective subject. The list is clearly indicated in this article and in the citations that it is "GSN's list". This makes it clear that it was ranked by GSN. If this isn't clear, it's openly explained in this article. Common sense can lead readers to determine for themselves what the value of the list is. All the citation claims is that it was ranked on this list - it does not imply that the show is in fact the Xth most popular show, period. GSN is the Game Show network, and are thus somewhat influencial in regards to game shows. Their list is of interest as much as the lists by AFI, a film organization, are given creedence, or TVGuide's about TV. I don't deny that GSN is going to have a bias towards GSN shows, but I think the fact that the citation says "GSN's list" and given the text in this article, noone is being "misled". TV guide has it's own list, and its results too should be presented in the articles as another perspective. As I said, this is just a note in the trivia section of the shows' articles. No one is proposing that this go in the intro paragraph of the articles as if it's a definative ranking. TheHYPO 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by those responding to RfC

If this is an official list, it should be portrayed in its original form. If this is a changeable list, it should be qualified by the date it was issued. --Jon Cates 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand your comment. This is a television series running three times a week and concluding on August 31. It not just a list that was issued on a particular date. Casey Abell 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Jon Cates is responding to our old friend Quotes22. Quotes has posted this article on the Media section of the RfC wikipedia area, but has ignored the proper procedure for actually putting an RfC in this talk page with a neutral statement of the dispute at the top of it (and I suppose, ignoring his own statement that he is quitting editing). His statement on the RfC page isn't particularly neutral either, and he signed with his username - IE: He has ignored the actual RfC procedure. As such, I will attempt to recreate it to the wikistandards. Those who have an opinion and were already involved in the dispute should post in the first section, outside responders should post in the second section. The original neutral statement should not be altered
I saw the RfC but I still don't understand Jon Cates' comment. I'm not quite sure what he means when he says the top-50 list "should be qualified by the date it was issued." The list has never been issued on any one date. As the televison series progresses, the list grows. Jon Cates seems to think that this is only a list of shows, rather than an seven-week television series. Casey Abell 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that he didn't know that because he didn't read the actual article where it explains where the list is coming from. TheHYPO 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to make the complaint that utter drek like this does not belong in the game show articles themselves. This is a list made to fill the summer schedule by a corporate entity that isn't even entitled to broadcast whichever game shows they want. Anybody can make a list. Hitler made lists. So what that "The Million Dollar Challenge" is game show #47 of all time, according to GSN? If there were some OBJECTIVITY to the list I wouldn't object -- e.g. the 50 longest running game shows of all time. But subjective fluff needs to be gone ASAP. - Abscissa 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then get rid of the AFI greatest films list, because that's only subjective opinion. In fact, get rid of every list that anybody has ever made which involves the smallest exercise of subjective opinion. And good luck with all the editors who have included thousands of references to such lists in the encyclopedia. Casey Abell 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Near the BOTTOM of the Goodfellas article: "The film is #94 on the American Film Institute's list of 100 Years, 100 Movies and is consistently in the top 30 on the Internet Movie Database's list of top 250 films. In 2000 the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. In 2005, a British film magazine, Total Film, named GoodFellas as the greatest film of all time." That is a bit more worthy of inclusion. The AFI is a not-for-profit. They don't really stand to gain anything by ranking Goodfellas ahead of Casino. Sony Pictures, however, stands to gain by their very making of a "list" which is actually an excuse for two months of slow-period programming. "Most subversive Jew #182 according to Hitler", do you want that we should include such a list? Give me a break and use common sense and let's get rid of this bupkis. - Abscissa 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Subjective opinion is okay if it's nonprofit subjective opinion? As I said above, there may be more reason to question the group-thinked decisions of a bunch of nonprofit bureaucrats than to question the decisions of almost anybody else. And you've already pushed the Hitler button twice, which is several light-years over the top for a thread on game shows.
You don't like GSN, which is your right. But it's just not convincing to argue that GSN's subjective opinions are beneath notice while we have to take note of the subjective judgments of a bunch of faceless AFI bureaucrats. And now that I think about it, is that British film magazine nonprofit? If not, we have to get rid of its opinion, by your reasoning. Casey Abell 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Abscissa -
I usually follow The Daily Show's advice and DON'T respond to anyone who's argument is so weak that they have to compare the thing they hate to Hitler to make a point. You can call this list subjective crap if you want. Go ahead. Call it that. That's why it has a talk page. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a notable list that an organization that has fair connection to the Game Show industry has made (this isn't Hitler's list of game shows, something he has no connection to. It's a TV network that specializes in Game Shows). Noone has claimed anywhere that the list is impartial. The intro makes it clear exactly who picked the list, and that it was aired as a TV special. If your opnion is that GSN can't make a real list and that a list on TV is meaningless, then so will everyone else who reads the article. As of right now, there are not companies all over the US making lists of the worlds greatest game shows. Feel free to produce a non-profit unbiased Game Show ranking list for consideration. In the meantime, the article is open and honest about what the list is. I don't see why IMDB's rankings are notable. You have two arguments. One is that the list here is subjective. Every item you brought up in Goodfellas is subjective. AFI "greatest films", IMDB "greatest films", "culturally significant"... etc. etc. TheHYPO 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article had a result of keep during it's AfD period. RfC seems like your attempting to circumvent decision made by AfD. Article looks fine, short of having a spoiler warning. Hackajar 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table format

I've been busy for the past few days converting the list into a table format, as originally started by Amnewsboy above. The progress on converting the list was apparently abandoned, so I took up the slack. Let me know what you think... Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. It's definitely more organized than the previous method. I'm likin' it. - Chad1m 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Thanks immensely! (I got tied up and never found time to Wikify everything.) Amnewsboy 02:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I just cut 'n' pasted the list form and their appropriate Wikilinks into the table. :P Glad people like it! Amnewsboy, would you mind if I deleted your user subpage with this on it, now that it is currently used in the article? Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I can take care of that. :) Amnewsboy 08:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest italics instead of bold for the 'no episode aired'? It makes the no-air summaries seem more prominent on the list when really they should be less or equal, IMO. TheHYPO 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Casey Abell 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks better. I think we also need to do something about the shows that were aired but the episode chosen was nothing special - the dash might be confusing as to whether something was aired or not aired or anything like that. Thoughts? TheHYPO 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Unfortunately, I didn't see the two episodes that have dashes, Whammy and The $1.98 Beauty Show. Did anybody happen to watch those episodes? Casey Abell 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I vaguely payed attention to them, but there is nothing notable about the episodes, which is why there was no note on the original table. Perhaps just something of the nature "Episode shown" (not centred)...
Is "episode shown" really necessary, given that we already have a "No Episode Aired" notation on the ones that, well, weren't shown? Amnewsboy 04:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, my point is that the ones that had an episode shown but the episode wasn't noteworthy currently are just dashes - which looks like even less happened than the 'no episode shown' shows when really, they did have an episode shown, it just wasn't a special episode. If anything, I'd say that the ones with no episode should should have dashes and the ones with an un-notable episode should just say "an episode was shown" - I think that heierarchally, the importance is "special episode shown", "episode shown", "no episode shown", while dashes would imply less happened than text ("no episode shown"). As well, since Dashes usually indicate 'nothing', and that column is almost totally used for what episode was shown, dashes could easily be misconstrued as 'nothing' being shown. TheHYPO 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] #13's Original Form

I'm fairly certain that this is the first time since '86 that the Larson episodes have aired in their original form. CBS barred reruns on CBS and USA, The Big Bucks had extra footage and documentary comments intertwined and other things like that. The episodes have never aired on GSN outside of the Big Bucks documentary. Therefore, I believe my comment makes sense and I'm going to put it back. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, GSN has aired the Larson episodes in their normal rotation two or three times in their original form. Tazz765 03:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I did some additional research, and they did air once in rotation. I apologize for my mistake. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 05:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airdates

Dwyer said tonight that each show that they show from now on will (presumably) be either doubles or, for the hour long shows, 1 episode. In other words, one per night -- but does that mean the series will run a week longer than expected? Amnewsboy 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know. I'm going to revert it for the time being until we get an official confirmation, because so far, Zap2it's listings have been right for the countdown, so I'm not sure. Let's keep it the way the TV listings have it until we get official confirmation. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably just means that three shows will only have stills. GSN long ago lost the rights to TPiR, so it probably won't air. Sajak made some barbed remarks about GSN on Wheel of Fortune, after which the show quickly disappeared from the GSN schedule. So WoF might not get an airing, either. Speculation on the GSN board is that LMaD may only get stills, too. Which would leave double eps of MG, FF and Jeopardy, and a single episode of Millionaire, if everybody is right about the remaining selections. Casey Abell 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Logically, it makes sense, but I seriously hope GSN would have better sense than to do that. Amnewsboy 06:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It may not be a matter of "sense," bad or good. GSN simply may not have the ability to program certain shows. CBS has never let GSN get a sniff at TPiR after the contract lapsed, and Sajak doesn't seem to want WoF on the network. I'm sure GSN would love to program both, but greater force may be prevailing. We'll see. Casey Abell 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not related to this last week, but I was thinking about What's My Line, and I've Got a Secret, and wondering why they didn't air Beat The Clock - from the former two's use of 70's versions, I'm guessing GSN is really really hating black and white TV right now and doesn't want it anywhere near prime time. They already pulled beat the clock and WML from overnights now, but I think they really didn't want to air a black and white program. TheHYPO 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody likes to run black-and-white television in prime time. How many B&W shows do you see on any cable or broadcast outlet in the peak viewing hours? I did a quick flip around a bunch of channels right now (8:45 PM Central) and the only thing I saw in black-and-white was an Edward G. Robinson flick on Turner's old movie channel. Everything else was in living... Casey Abell 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Long ago, GSN often aired black and white in primetime. CBS had no problem airing clips of black and white Beat The Clock in their gameshow marathon series. I don't know if America gets it, but Lonestar (the western channel) used to (still might) air black and white western series in primetime. Either way, GSN would not have been constant B&W - just one episode in their primetime series. Probably would have been the $64,000 super bonus win (in 1956).
When GSN was putting B&W shows in prime time, its audience was less than half of what the network currently gets. CBS only aired black-and-white clips, not an entire B&W show. Lonestar is a fringe Canadian network, and frankly I had never even heard of it before I read your comments. It just doesn't make business sense to air B&W shows in prime time, which is why almost no networks do it. The overwhelming majority of TV viewers want to watch shows in color, which is why B&W TV sets aren't in much demand any more. I'm sure this seems unfair to fans of old TV, but them be the facts of programming life. I'm not going to criticize GSN for doing what almost all of their competitors do and what most TV viewers want. I will admit that you'd find a receptive audience for your comments on the GSN Classics board and Matt Ottinger's board (wink). Casey Abell 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not really saying that GSN should go putting BtC on regular 8:00 rotation (ok, it should, but that's not what I'm saying here). I'm merely pointing out a possible reason BtC was the only unshown show (so far) which GSN clearly has the rights to air. And I have to challenge your last argument in the fact that I'm not suggesting a permanant slot, but simply one episode in a "50 greatest game shows" program - viewers of which I have to assume are fans of old game shows and thus open to the possibility of seeing black and white shows (and perhaps even welcoming seeing such classic game shows) - I personally would have far preferred a significant original What's My Line than the far worse 70s version which was definately not the run that put the series on the map. Anyhoo, it's not really an argument in any event - merely an observation as to why BtC might not have aired. TheHYPO 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of losing the thread of your argument when you say that you're not saying GSN should put BtC on regular prime time rotation, but then you say that you are saying it. (That sentence really does makes sense, I think.) Anyway, GSN shows no signs of dumping its highest-rated show, Millionaire, from the 8:00 PM Eastern slot for BtC or anything else. We'll have to wait for Regis' reruns to burn out before something else gets the plum slot. And I'm sorry, but I doubt GSN will ever put B&W shows—even isolated episodes—in prime time again. Such programming might please a small minority of traditionalists like you and the folks on the web boards I've mentioned (and, to some extent, myself). But it would have little appeal for most viewers, who are not hardcore game show fanatics but only drop by GSN now and then. As for WML, I said somewhere above that it's not my favorite show in any incarnation. Frankly, I think it's a rather dull and stiff panel show and of interest mostly for historical reasons. But at least the syndicated version tried to open things up a little with some show-and-tell by the contestants. I'll admit somebody must have liked WML, because it lasted for seventeen years on CBS and eight years in syndication. That's why I put it in my top ten, despite my lukewarm attitude towards it. Casey Abell 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. To put one episode in this countdown is not the same as having it daily in primetime. I don't think it would have been a problem. I don't think people who wanted to see the 35th greatest game show of all time would have tuned out because it was a black and white show (I tuned out because they aired two episodes of Lingo and definately would have stayed for a BtC). RE: WML, The 70s syndie was a hybrid of WML and I've Got a Secret (the latter having the 'demo' factor originally, while WML didn't). My personal issue with 70's WML is that they often just said "noone knows?" after 3 or 4 down because the demos were 3 or 4 minutes long and they left no time for the game. It's the same problem I have with IGAS initially - they had something like 20 seconds per panelist to guess which was next to useless in terms of gameplay and the show was really more of a "look what I can do" spectacle. But I saw a WML 70's where a contestant designed sneakers for Keds and they had a 3 or 4 minute "fashion show" of sneakers rather than actually have the panel finish the guessing. The joy of 50s WML (And I'm in my 20s, so I'm not being nostalgic to something I remember here) is the personality and charm of the panel and host and definately the historic look back at the formal atmosphere, jobs in the 50s and 60s, how people treated others and how they talked; as well as the interesting look purely at TV in the 50s and 60s. You also had a boat load of celebrities very young, and also great comedians guesting on the panels which was often very amusing. Most of that is lost in the 70s version which seems far more 'modern' and less interesting. A quick demo from someone who does something interesting would be nice, but a long demo by almost every guest is unnecessary. Once they had a pancake maker on the 70s WML, and had to have a pancake flipping contest among the panel. Another time it was a Salvation Army Tambourine-marching-lady who had to teach the panel some marching steps. It was just unnecessary. I think a lot of it is the charm of the panel and host in the original version though that is just lost without them. GSN just killed WML from overnights for some Amazing Race reruns (oh boy, can't wait to see those again).TheHYPO 10:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In case you're interested, GSN will bring back WML in October in the early Monday morning time slot, according to a note from the sysop of their web board. I really don't care because, as I said, I thought the old B&W show was way too slow and stiff. The questioning often wandered for a long time, which you (and many other viewers, of course) seemed to like but which I found tedious. At least the color syndie version speeded things up and offered some demos to break up the monotony. The quicker pace and the show-and-tell was why I liked IGaS a lot more—exactly for the reasons you didn't like the show. But non disputandum, for those who sat through a Latin class or three. As for the B&W shows in prime time, good luck, but I just don't think you're ever going to see them again, even for one-offs. Hardly anybody else ever puts B&W shows in prime time, and I don't expect GSN to start doing it, even as a very occasional one-time special. Casey Abell 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it won't be LMaD that gets only stills. We'll just have to see what happens next week. Six shows get crammed into three hours? Or do they extend the countdown? Casey Abell 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Commercials airing yesterday and today indicate that next week will be the final week of the countdown. TheHYPO 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think WoF should be considered a "regularly aired show" that GSN did not show an episode of for the count down. That should probably be removed.
WoF vanished from GSN once Sajak made it clear he didn't want the show on the network. My guess is that Jeopardy will also get only stills because Sony doesn't want any nighttime exposure on GSN. It's probably a given that TPiR will get only stills because CBS is keeping tight control of the show. And if I had to bet, I'd say Match Game will get the #1 slot because that's where it landed in both of GSN's feasts of favorites. We'll see soon enough. Casey Abell 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy or Match Game?

State your case for the "Greatest Game Show of All Time", as either Alex Trebek or Gene Reyburn will be the King of Games Shows tommorow night. For the record I think it will be Match Game, as GSN shows it more often. This whole series has been promoting their shows. J.R. 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A talk page isn't for this type of discussion. Talk pages are for changes to the article, not general discussion of the article subject. Guessing about what will be the top game show = a post that doesn't belong on this talk page. RobJ1981 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
But listing personal top 10 lists is okay? If you're going to be running your mouth as to what or what not should be here, at least be consistant, Rob. Moving on. For the record, I was right. J.R. 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

My personal opinion is that these footnotes are superfluous. This article isn't about each game show. Subnotes that Concentration was a nightime show, or that jeopardy had another name at one time seem unnecessary in this article. TheHYPO 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After the Siegenthaler disaster Wikipedia has gone footnote-happy. I had to splatter the little gremlins all over the Henry James article to get FA status. The notes on this article are probably as unnecessary as most of the others in the encyclopedia. But they're the price we're paying for our reputation as a bunch of gaffe-prone doofuses. Casey Abell 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for featured list

I've nominated this list as a featured list. Please contribute to the ongoing discussion, if you wouldn't mind. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../5/0/_/Talk%7E50_Greatest_Game_Shows_of_All_Time_%28TV_series%29_d363.html"