Talk:Duel (US game show)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duel (US game show) article.
Article policies
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Running Time

Think it should say 90 minutes instead of 60. --Mjrmtg (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should include both because Wednesday, Thursday and Friday night it'll be an hour long. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't say either. Runtime is supposed to be not including the commercials, not the full 90 or 60 minutes. TheHYPO (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Then find the times out and add them back - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaderboard?

Is that leaderboard really necessary? Looks like original research to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WadeSimMiser (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's directly from the primary source. However, I argue whether anything more than the top four should be listed. The other players are not notable in the form of the game; as well, leaving 24 spots open is pointless since it is likely (as the host noted) that not all 24 players will be chosen to duel. TheHYPO (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I just wasn't sure how the show would play out (whether the eliminated contestants were gone for good) so I made it into 24 just in case. I think that the earnings should be placed next to each contestant in their section - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It is now clear that once you're out of the top 4, you're out of the show. I think that either putting the earnings down by the contestants' names is a good solution, and the leaderboard should be relagated; or else, the contestants should all be added to the bottom of the table as "not chosen" - either way, two big lists of all contestants will be redundant. I also think that once the show is done airing, anyone who didn't get chosen to play a duel should be removed as unnotable from the contestant list. TheHYPO (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I formatted the Leader Board table back to only 4 spots with the jackpot header on the top. I also formatted the list of contestants into a table with the no. of duels they won and the amount they won. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know wiki table code that well, but is there any way to columnize the article so that the leaderboard sits to the right of the duel list (to save space)? TheHYPO (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone figured out what the tiebreaker for the leaderboard is? If so, this should be included. I thought it was simply, the person who went first got in, but the Karla Jackson/Emily Hendriks tiebreaker violated that rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.190.152 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I would guess that perhaps it is based on either the standing of players that they beat, or more likely on the number of questions either that they got right (more=better), or that it took them to win (less=better). Adding either would be original research though. TheHYPO (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
My theory is that whoever wins in later rounds takes the tiebreaker, considering that this is a progressive tournament. Think of it this way: Player A wins a game, then Player B defeats Player A, then Player C defeats Player B. Using the transitive property, we can assume that Player C is better than Player A, no matter how true or untrue this is. As I watched the first show, I was thinking how much of a disadvantage you were at being one of the first players: not only did you not have the advantage of learning from other players' mistakes (as those in the Players Gallery does), but you get screwed by not knowing how much you need to make it into the leaderboard. Now, we add to all this the fact that later players have an advantage over early ones in leaderboard standings, and being one of the first kinda sucks.
I was also perplexed why they didn't sequester the other contestants in the green room so that they couldn't gain any advantage by watching previous matches. I know Jeopardy! doesn't do this because everyone knows the strategy by now after the decades it has been on the air. But with a new game show like this, tradition has been to sequester contestants. Then again, if I were in charge of production, I would have made many decisions that would have changed the whole show, but this is not a place to get on a soapbox. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
For all we know, if there should be a tie for the fourth spot with the fifth person, they will figure that out at the end, and for now any note of one person as 1st over 2nd while tied is just so they don't have to explain that they are tied or add extra seats or whatnot. We'll see if it is an issue, and if not, no reason to wonder about it. TheHYPO (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Summaries

Do we really need to keep updating the episode summary every 5 seconds with each move that happens? Write a summary after the episode is completed. 12.29.175.2 (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we need synopses at all? It seems like an atypical venture for a game show article. All it says is "this player played and beat this person, then played and beat that person... If people think this information is viable, it is best written as a listing of duels, not as a written synopsis. I'm gonna kill the synopses now; they can be returned if there is outrage, but I think they are pointless TheHYPO (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you, but since this is a game show with a set amount of contestants (24) on a set amount of episodes (6), I think that the summaries should be kept. If the show continues after the 6 episodes I think that the summaries shouldn't be kept. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I reitterate, episode summaries are stupid. They amount to a list of duels, which would simply be a better and more efficient use of space, and be clearer to read without silly essay-grammer for no reason. Someone who wants to keep the episode summaries ought to reformat them into a list or table of duels. Otherwise it's just a poor section that should be removed. It's not a summary of the episodes, or it would have to actually summarize the games. This is a summary of duels which should just be a list, not a summary. If noone wants to do it, I'll do it myself, because really the little notes like "on a question about dog's fingerprints" is quite poor style for wikipedia, and is quite trivial to mention.TheHYPO (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updating during show.

These episodes have been taped. They are not live. As such, the leaders probably shouldn't be updated as the show runs but only once, after the show has finished airing. TheHYPO (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

Hey Zach. As that duel list gets longer, I think the top-4 is going to look really a lot worse on the left than on the right. I'd like to keep the duel list on the left. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I moved the Leaderboard to the left column just because the duel list was short at the time, but as it gets longer (which it is now) I think it's going to look worse too. I'll move it now. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Another factor on the tables is that I had the cash values aligned right, so that like accounting format, digits would line up in place value instead of centred where (for example the $100,000 jackpot add is not aligned with the other 5 digit values.

Right now I'm seeing a rendering problem with the tables wherein the top4 table is overlapping the duel table. I'm going to try to fix it. (5 minutes later): I have repaired the issue which stemmed from the use of a fixed width table (pixels), which was wider than the multicol which apparently uses even columns; I was forced to compress the table a bit, and that necessitated making the "shootout" note a footnote or else leaving the (shootout) on a 2nd line, which I thought was less desirable. This way all duels so far are one line on a standard fullscreen 1024x768 or larger screen, and any smaller window simply has the contestants' names wordwrap onto two lines.

If anyone is aware of a two-column format that would allow the left column to be wider than the right instead of equal columns, that would help. I'm not sure one exists. TheHYPO (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the accounting format better with the right alignment. And I'm not sure how to adjust the sizes of the columns. Maybe someone else out there knows how? - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 11:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that is what you wanted, but I've changed the column alignment of the tables. In addition, I've also changed the "leaderboard table" -- I think it should fit more into the Wikipedia style than that of the show's (which may or may not have been the original intention). Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the new leaderboard table, except I think that it's a little wide (based on the content in it). I'll change the width and see what happens. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the lack of space between the columns with the col template. It looks a little sloppy. TheHYPO (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List problem

Hi, it says in the Contestants table that Fritz Gheen (the umpire) had been eliminated but why is his name not on the Duels list? 209.195.77.203 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He was definately on last night. I missed the episode and only watched it on PVR tonight, so I didn't look at the table in fear of spoilers; I already deleted it tho, so I can't go back and check it. He definately one a game last night and then lost one. Maybe someone used the wrong name? TheHYPO (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact that the first duel is right. Robert beat Tammy. I also know that Stephen then beat Robert (the whole father figure thing).
I also know that Stephen lost to the Nurse Ashelee because she thanked a patient for the Judge Judy answer that beat Stephen (even though she put all four answers down, I don't see how that patient helped her). I know that the person who picked the Umpire chose him saying that umps are known for making mistakes - Fritz won his game on Bikini, and I think that was against Stephen? I'm not positive. TheHYPO (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Fritz Beat Stephen, then lost to Ashlee. And Ashlee thanked the patient because that answer was her first choice.

catldr24 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.93.27 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is everyone?

What, did noone watch last night or tonight? We usually have 3 or 4 people rapidly tossing in the duel info as it happens if not right after the EST viewing. Noone has updated either episode so far. TheHYPO (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a Friday night haha. I had to tape it so I would see what happened - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the Question marks for Ken's money.

I didn't record the show, but I filled in everything else exactly. I also changed all remaining players in the player's gallery to read "Eliminated (Did Not Play)". I felt it was succinct enough. Feel free to change if you think it sounds bad. Catldr24 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preemptivity: re tomorrow night

Should we add a new table under the leaderboard? Replace the leaderboard? I guess once tomorrow concludes the leaderboard is no longer relevant? I guess we'll have to see what the format is, but we will probably be removing the leaderboard? Probably ought to have a table or something that covers the playoffs separate from the first table (and should title the first table "qualifying round" TheHYPO (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that after tomorrow we replace the right side with the leaderboard with a Playoffs table and keep the qualifying table on the left. I also think that the final duel between the 4th seed and the new challenger should go under qualifying round and not playoffs. -zachinthebox (User • Talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The format of the "please remove this tonight" tables will have to be tweaked; I assume that was just put there as a starting point; There is no reason for a single tabular row across the article; If anywhere, it would be just fine across the top of the playoff table. The playoff table is also quite speculative since we have no idea what the playoff format will be. TheHYPO (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's just a basic table to get it started. I think that the jackpot should actually be put into the lead of the section, rather than in a table (ex. "The top four players played for a final jackpot of X dollars"). I'm assuming that the playoffs will be in the same format, but something like 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd as semi-finals and then the winners of those duel each other. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final round

On the show tonight, Robert Elswick was said to have taken home $55,000, but we have it listed at $50,000. Are our numbers wrong? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables... again

Radical idea: what if we made the qualifying round tables into two columns (Mon/Tues/Weds and Thurs/Fri/Sun?), then had the championship info in a separate two columns? Does that make any sense? Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I think that the Gameplay DUELS AND LEADERBOARD section needs some work. Try making an example in your sandbox and link us to it. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 01:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
He wants to cut the qualifying in half so that the first half of the games are on the left, and the second half are on the right. Then put the standings and finals tables side by side below that. Only concern about that right now is that a double wide qualifying table might not fit side by side.
Do you think the gameplay section is too long or what? I think it covers all the bases right now... TheHYPO (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the length of the gameplay section is fine, but I just think that having all the different tables in together starting at different spots down the page looks sort of... messy for lack of a better word. I'll try and fix it a little. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I moved all the text in the columns to the lead paragraph so that there was more room and all the tables started on the same line. I also removed the jackpot line because I think that the red background and extra row wasn't really adding that much and could be easily found in the lead. I also reworded and then moved all the notes outside the columns so there was, again, more room - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 02:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks good now. TheHYPO accurately described what I would like to have. I think that if we were to change it, we could make it more chronological. As it is right now, reading left to right (and not first column, then second column), I read a portion of the qualifying, the standings after qualifying, and the finals chart. Maybe I read articles differently than everyone else, but that is how I read it. As for not having enough room for the article to have two tables side-by-side, I know it would fit on my monitor, but I forgot that I am using a higher resolution screen than other people are using (1280x1024). I'll fiddle around with this in a few days, and I'll post the results. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Fame

I added a hall of Fame for this article

1st Round Name Occupation Duels won Winnings
Winner Ashlee Register Nurse 4 $1,795,000
Runner-Up Robert Elswick II Used car salesman 4 $55,000
2nd Round Name Occupation Duels Won Winnings
Winner TBA TBA TBA TBA
Runner-Up TBA TBA TBA TBA


What is fame? What is a hall of fame?
  1. There is no evidence the show will return
  2. There is no precident for calling this week a "rpound"
  3. The winner and runner up are already shown in this article
  4. Who is the arbiter of who is "famous"?
I support the removal of this from the article. TheHYPO (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spilt Article

Should we split this article into two seasons because I read the episode description for tonight's season premiere and it says something about a revamped version of the show returns. Also, if we did split it we could keep Season 1's leaderboard/information, however if we kept both seasons in one article, I think it would be best to remove it or else it just becomes cluttered. - zachinthebox (Talk) 10:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contestants not-notable?

I would like consensus to delete the table of Season 1 contestants, which I think was fairly un-notable at the time of air, and now that the series is continuing, is even more unnecessary. Any decents? 74.12.97.13 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. - zachinthebox (Talk) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New top prize

Just to check (maybe I misheard it)--is the top prize $500K, no matter how much one wins in five Duels, or is it the five Duel total plus $500K? Samer (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't made clear; I would guess the prize is bumped to 500k, rather than tacking it on. TheHYPO (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[Note: spoiler warning.] OTOH, if you do that, then the more a contestant wins, the more likely they are to walk, since they have much less to gain by continuing to play (think about it for a second--would you risk $400K for a chance at $100K?). Although, from the previews, it looks like we'll find out in the next few weeks (not only did they show confetti on the set, but they pretty much showed us who's going to win the $$$$). Samer (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the concept is that the better a player is, the faster they will win their duels... if you win 4 duels in 3 questions each, you only win 5k per... 20k to risk on your fifth duel. You're only risking 400k if you win each of four duels in 10 questions or more, AND double it. Very unlikely. TheHYPO (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that it's not a question of how good you are, it's a question of how good your opponents are. In any case, I put a note to the effect that it's an open question; once it's stated definitively, we can edit it. Samer (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a mixture; half the game is strategy; when to press, how you gamble your chips so that you have more than your opponent but don't risk getting the wrong answer... a winner can win equally by his own skill or by the lack of skill of the opponent. The winner gets to pick their opponent though, so that's another way they control their own destiny. As such, to at least some extent, a short game can be dictated by a good player picking a bad opponent, and playing well against them. Either way, it is still very unlikely for any player to play four games to 10 questions each (remember they only get ten chips). TheHYPO (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Picking a bad opponent"--unfortunately, all they tell you is the person's age(?), occupation, and hometown. That's not really enough to make an educated decision. But we don't even have to go as far as $400K to win $100K. The problem becomes that the money at stake just doesn't justify going on (even risking $20K might only net you $1K in the next Duel). The worst example of this I can think of is the "Perfect 21" round from Twenty-One (game show). All you had to do to win $210K was answer six true-false questions. The problem, though, was the prize structure: $10K, $20K, ... , $60K, and a wrong answer cost you everything. Thus, the amounts at risk were $10K to win $20K (fine), $30K to win $30K (OK), $60K to win $40K (ummm....), $100K to win $50K, and then the rather ridiculous $150K to win $60K. It'll be interesting to see how much the five-Duel winner is gutsy enough to risk in the process. Samer (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)