Talk:Eazy az 1 2 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep, no consensus for merge.

I think the article should be called "Easy as 1-2-3" because that is the way the game is spelled on CBS.com. If that's the way they spell it on the website, then shouldn't it be the official name? Wikider 05:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. CBS's website is known amongst fans for being horribly inaccurate; information found there should never be regarded as more accurate than info taken from the show itself. The article's title is correct as it is. 71.31.68.107 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)(Steve Gavazzi)

Well, that was just the setup. Would the setup always conatin the official name? You could contact CBS and find out the name. If you ask them directly, they will answer. By the way, are you getting this from a person named Steve Gavazzi? If you aren't him, then how would he know? Wikider 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• With regard to your first question, yes.

With regard to your second question...no, I'm not getting it from Steve Gavazzi. I am Steve Gavazzi. Why else would I sign the post that way?

The point remains that CBS's website is notoriously inaccurate. Your argument has no merit. 71.31.68.107 03:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)(Steve Gavazzi)

Well, do you think they would intentionally want it spelled that way? Or is it just because they want it to keep with the theme of the game (a sort of kindergarten-type writing)? I think their intentions were to spell it "Easy", but you can call it "Eazy" if you think that it's correct because that's what the set says. If your final say is that it's the official name because it's displayed on the set, then leave it that way. For that matter, how would we know the names of the three games that don't have names? Look at cbs.com? Or are they wrong? And please don't blame me on this as an edit war; I only made one edit. Wikider 03:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no argument over "Most Expensive." "Five Price Tags" is spelled as I've just written it in every official source I know of. "1 Wrong Price" is more debateable, since I've seen it written out as "One Wrong Price;" the reason I don't write it that way is that I've also seen 1 Right Price's name written out similarly in places such as the lineup slate, and since I base spellings on logos whenever possible and since one game's name was obviously based on the other's, it seems logical to base 1 Wrong Price's spelling on 1 Right Price's logo.

And yes, I've always assumed that "Eazy" and "az" were misspelled intentionally. The fact that it's meant to be childish doesn't make them not be Zs. 71.31.67.115 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)(Steve Gavazzi)

Actually, I wasn't talking about the set name, rather the official name. Have you ever seen the board behind the set? It lists the names of the games, plus the big wheel and showcase round. However, it is not always correct either; it refers to "Switch?" as the "Switch Game". I think it is time to wrap up my message. Wikider 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That board is exactly what I'm talking about...and I've already said that I don't feel it's worth consulting for any game that has a logo.

Okay then. We will leave it the way it is. Another thing: Have you ever thought of using a username? That way, you will be able to create your own user page.

I was under the impression that the game's prop had two backward S's, and not Z's. Is that not the case? sottolacqua

Ss don't generally have corners. -TPIRFanSteve 05:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

a) That is completely dependant on the font.

b) The set seems to use rounded letters and while it's not perfect circles as in a formal font, the corners of the s/z's are slightly rounded.

Long story short, while S's don't USUALLY have corners, they can in some fonts that are intended to be somewhat simplistic and handwritten. IF you look at the font Comic Sans in a large size, the top curve of the lowercase S is much pointier than in a formal font. In OCR A Std font, the S's are fairly pointed as well. That's just an example, anyhoo.

I think it's debatable as to which way the game "should" be titled. TheHYPO 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eazy az 3 2 1

One of the most beautiful things about this game is that it can be played and won in either direction, 1 highest to 3 lowest, 1 lowest to 3 highest. I doubt it's going to be required anytime soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messy Thinking (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Um...what? How is that "beautiful?" One way wins, and the other loses. The single time it's been played backwards only happened because Bob explained the rules wrong. -TPIRFanSteve 05:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Messy Thinking 04:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Because it can be won and lost in both directions.

No, it can't. You're ignoring the facts here. -TPIRFanSteve 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The music

What is it? I know that for a time in the early-mid 90s, my local PBS station (UNC-TV) used the ame music. --Jnelson09 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a piece of stock music. It's been used by lots of companies for lots of things. -TPIRFanSteve 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and references

Why are there no sources and references in this article? --Son (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Like most articles on TV shows, most of the information in the article comes purely from the show itself. While dates probably should be sourced with a proper reference, it is implied that "blah happened since [date]" can be verified by watching the show from that date. There are only a handful of things on the pricing game pages that really are what I would call "uncited", meaning they should have references (quotes, off-show reasons for things like retirement, or who create the game, etc.) which cannot be seen simply by watching the show. TheHYPO (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles need reliable sources regardless. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Scott5114↗ 07:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would also be original research. A parallel example is Pennsylvania Route 39. The route description section must have sources and citations; while I could simply drive down the road and write about it, or look at the road from a map with buildings labeled, that would constitute original research. Hence why you need verifiable reliable sources, and not just watch television show. --Son (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

While I, like you, would love to have a compendium on pricing games to cite, the only source is the program itself. I've never seen anyone ever tag episode articles for any TV series as unreferenced, even though the plot synopsis comes entirely from watching the episode (this is the source...). Similarly, most character articles source only episodes of the tv series/movie - whether episodes are listed for each fact or not, the source is still just watching episodes and writing down what happens. Same thing here. TheHYPO (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is WP:EPISODE, which is the guidelines over all television episodes on Wikipedia. Again, it comes back to WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V. Television is not an exception. It's also like I said in my previous statement. I can't go out and drive on Pennsylvania Route 39 and then write about it here. I need a secondary source that talks about the road. You need secondary sources to talk about the games, especially history or trivia. Now, as for the game itself, yes you can use the show as a primary source. But every article still needs a reference section, and you'd need to give a link to the tv show itself. --Son (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree that articles with history and behind the scenes needs sourcing on articles that have them. However, there is a link to TPIR in every article; if you're saying that each article needs to stick a References section at the bottom and re-link to the show, I guess I can do that via AWB - is that what you're suggesting? Let me know and I'll go do that now. It seems silly, though. I've never seen that on any TV article, and whatever wp:episode says, wikipedia policy is set by consensus. Can you show me any other articles that cite the show itself as a reference for an episode (or element of the show) in a references section, I'll go put it in these articles - but I thought the consensus was that it was safe to presume that if an article is about a TV show, synopses, characters, rules (for game shows) etc. were sourced from the show itself (which is linked in the article, just not under references). TheHYPO (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For one, Freemantle Media (the production company) just rolled out a new website for TPIR and there are some brief synopses of pricing games on the CBS daytime website. It's a start. From there it will be a challenge to come up with more references, but that can't be used as the excuse. I would shore up some of these articles, but my free time is fleeting. I intend to do it ... some day, unless someone beats me to it.—Twigboy (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, every one of those descriptions was copy/pasted from a fansite (not Golden-Road.net), with said fan's opinions edited out of them.

Not sure if that affects anything or not; I'm just sayin'. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could lead to the articles that were copied being deleted under the Criteria for speedy deletion (general criteria № 12). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Steve is saying that either CBS or Freemantle's site copied a fansite, not wikipedia - in other words, saying that using them as sources is somewhat ironic or hypocritical (not sure what his point was, but I think his fact was that those sites were copied, not wikipedia articles) TheHYPO (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Seeing as how we have a group of editors conversing about Wikipedia's TPIR content on a random pricing game article's talk page, perhaps we should form a WikiProject to give us a central area to discuss changes that should be made to all TPIR-related articles and coordinate improvements. What do you think? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scott5114, this would be a logical step. There are a significant number of articles specifically about TPIR. I think we should form a WP. --Son (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone else is willing to do the legwork to set it up (I don't know the technicalities of setting up a WProj), It certainly couldn't hurt TheHYPO (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Based on my experience to fire up a Game Show Project (which garnered little interest and was discontinued), something like this—with its limited scope and small pool of editors—might best be started as a Task Force under WP:TV. I would also look in the archives of Talk:The Price Is Right (US game show) for related discussion on reliable sources and trivial information. If it gets legs, then move it to its own project.—Twigboy (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also try to dust that project off and form a task force under it. Seems like it just needs a bit of revitalization and some planning and improvement. If we added tags to the talk pages and began using a WP:1.0-type assessment system, we could set a goal to shoot for.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I say we go for it! --Son 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do, as the time that I once had is the time I no longer have.—Twigboy 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)