Talk:Gameshow Marathon (U.S. TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi - I don't know how to change a whole title heading, but this Wiki entry should be Gameshow Marathon, not Game Show Marathon. I know the single word "gameshow" is weird and grammatically icky, but it's the official title of the show.

Done. Lambertman 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it should be spelt "Game$how Marathon." Nick 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. The dollar sign is part of the stylized logo; it is not included in the actual title. —David Levy 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be cancelled super-fast. --*kate 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The first night's ratings were second in households behind NBC's Dateline, so there is no reason to suspect early cancellation yet. Jude86 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's 4 shows into a 7-show run -- when's the super-fast cancellation gonna happen, Kfrogers?

My bad call, sorry. --*kate 02:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] CTV sponsoring a similar contest

Is CTV sponsoring a similar contest to CBS? If so, it should be cited, or else the phrase should be removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It IS mentioned on their webpage for the show, but no further details for it were given anywhere on their site. This is why I asked if anyone watching in Canada on CTV could confirm or deny that the Sweepstakes is taking place there as well. njr75003 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • CTV is airing the same viewer sweepstakes promotions during the show as CBS, even though Canadians are ineligible for the contest. CTV has mentioned no other contest besides the contest CBS is doing. Nick 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hole In One

"(Unlike its' current "Hole In One Or Two" format, and possibly due to time constraints, Kathy was only allowed one attempt to putt rather than two.)"

According to someone who attended the taping, Kathy was actually given two putts, but one was edited out for some reason. I'm not sure exactly how I should edit that though. WilliamPorygon 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like it could just be added as you put it above. njr75003 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beat The Clock

Due to technical difficulties (ie. a power outage that f'ed up my VCR), I was unable to view tonight's episode of GSM and the BEAT THE CLOCK game. If anyone else has, and can do up the summary, please do so. If _I_ can find a copy of it (possibly through BitTorrent), I'll do it. Either way, please feel free to contribute. njr75003 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

  • I want to thank Jude86 for taking the reins for BTC and completing its summary (except for the PRIZE DELIVERY segment). In addition, I've done the detailed Summary for Press Your Luck. njr75003 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, there, but you credited the wrong person. I had nothing to do with finishing BTC summary. Jude86 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recaps

We need to put the recaps on a seperate page, or not do a play-by-play of every game, because it's getting too long. And uses too much caps. -TonicBH 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I appreciate the hard work that's gone into creating the recaps, I'm afraid that much of the information is ultimately unencyclopedic. I'd like to see if we can build a consensus as to the appropriate level of detail. Here are my initial thoughts:
    • TPIR: Create table listing Pricing Games, Player, and Prize Won
    • LMAD: Create table listing Each round, Player, Prize Won, and Prize(s) Not Won
    • BTC: Open to suggestions
    • PYL: Perhaps list # of spins won by each player in round 1, total won per player in round 1, spins won per player in round 2, and final score (including number of Whammies)
    • CS: Might be OK as is (don't expand as the tag says)
I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts. Lbbzman 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree too. to add to your list, for BTC i'd say list each stunt, who competed in that stunt, times for completion, and prizes won. in other words... pretty much what's there already. :D maybe there's a better way to organize it, like a table or something.

i don't want to add too much more, but i think it would be necessary to add information about the partners that each celebrity had. they played significant parts in some of the stunts, especially since paige's and kathy's partners did most of the work in the final head-to-head stunt. Art Begotti 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to work on something and replace what's up there. If it's not acceptable then someone can convert it back and I won't have many complaints.--Dleav 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was kinda counting on a more detailed recap of the Card Sharks episode. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed that episode, and the detailed recaps were the next best thing to seeing it for real 24.243.26.108

I'm kind of surprised by the extensive level of detail here; I'm surprised the commercials weren't transcribed as well. This level of detail really belongs on a fan page and not in Wikipedia.

    • I agree. There should be a separate page for results, if there is one at all. Already, the page is 46 kilobytes long. As you know (and I'm learning fast), any page above 32 KB triggers a warning.--Desmond Hobson 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I just added a TV.com link, maybe somebody can move and format the recaps there. Or make seperate articles, but that could become a problem. --TonicBH 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
game show fans are a notriously detaile dbunch. I have a feeling that a couple of weeks after this series ends, virtually all of the recaps can be eliminated, but there's really no use in fighting it right now. Lambertman 15:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information on there now should stay, since it's a good read and other shows have even more detailed breakdowns (admittedly not game shows, though); however, the recaps for each episode should have their own page. Adam 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the recaps should be moved or deleted. I think the likely outcome is that the material will be moved to another site even if it's deleted here; so in order to complete the current collection of recaps, I added a slightly-condensed recap of the Family Feud game (just listing the questions and answers, not getting into the details of exactly which family member gave which answer and so on). Kickaha Ota 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And to state my reasoning for why the material should be moved: The fundamental problem isn't the length or detail of the material, although that is a problem. The fundamental problem is sourcing. This is a Wikipedia article; even though it's about a light subject, it's still not exempt from the requirement that content must be based on verifiable sources. If you're now typing a comment to disagree with this, look down just below the edit box you're typing in. See, it's right there. :) The CBS broadcasts themselves are very poor sources, because the contents of TV broadcasts are much harder to verify than the contents of books or movies. A few details, like the trivia questions, could be sourced from the CBS website; but there's a good chance that material will be removed as soon as the series is nonrenewed, and many of the details of the gameplay aren't found there. Much of this material (including my own) was probably compiled by editors watching the broadcast; that's at least bordering on unverifiability. We need to be able to cite a secondary source for this stuff. Kickaha Ota 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

let me see if i understand this correctly... you're saying that for every detail (every question, every prize, every response, etc.) to comply with the rules of verifiability, there's gotta be some website out there (or other solid source) that we can reference. and therefore, if that's there, then we can just remove the majority of the details on this page, referencing that page for anyone who's interested in reading everything? if that's what you're saying, then it sounds like a good plan to me... then again, i'm fairly thick, and i'm good at misinterpreting these things. Art Begotti 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see verifiability as the problem. In my opinion, the TV shows themselves are perfect points of reference, and can be properly cited using the {{cite video}} template. In my mind, the bigger problem with the recaps is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lbbzman 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Card Sharks maximum win

The discussion of the Card Sharks game says that the maximum possible win was $144000, and I believe that was also said on the air. But the math still doesn't make sense to me. On the bottom row, you start with $1K; the best you can do is double it three times to $8K. Move to the second row, get the additional $1K, and double your $9K three times to $54K. Move to the Big Bet, double your money again to $108K. Where does the extra $36K come in? Kickaha Ota 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

9 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 72. At least that's how my match came out :) Cheers, Lbbzman 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
D'oh. And again I say, d'oh. Kickaha Ota 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (d'oh)

[edit] New page of summaries

After seeing your suggestions on the talk page, I have put all the summaries on its separate page, called Gameshow Marathon show summaries. I hope you don't mind.

But be warned: the new page is still 49 kilobytes long. Either I or someone else may have to break the page down even further.--Desmond Hobson 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's better that it's off this page, but I still think it should be trimmed or possibly deleted. --Burgwerworldz 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another year

Any ideas whether or not CBS will do Gameshow Marathon again? Maybe with different games. I would hope they'd bring Ricki Lake back cause I love her. (:--Wikiphilia 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet to say that this article would be updated the very nanosecond CBS would make such an announcement. I would put the likelihood of another one at about 5%, though. The ratings weren't anywhere near what they needed to be to overcome the idea of this being a one-time retro funfest.Lambertman 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a few weeks old, but the latest speculation is that the show will return. I cited TVGameShows.net as the source and have put it on the page. However, I remember writing something like this before and it was removed. Hopefully, this will stay on the page until CBS confirms the information from the source, but I do trust TVGameShows.net as a good insider website.--Desmond Hobson 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It was removed because it's speculation. Also, you keep referring to the ratings as "dismal," which crosses over into the NPOV rule -- plus, it's not accurate. You cite specific demographic numbers to make the case for bad ratings, but GSM wasn't intended for just the narrow demo you're citing. The overall numbers (the ones that count on a show like this) weren't bad -- it came in #1 in its timeslot 5 of the 7 nights it aired. If it truly was "dismal" as you keep suggesting, then why would CBS be talking about picking it up for another season? There's nothing about ratings under the entry for Card Sharks, nothing about ratings under the entry for Win Ben Stein's Money, nothing about ratings under the entry for The Joker's Wild... so there's no reason for discussion of ratings under Gameshow Marathon. It was a show, here's what it was about, here's who was in it, here's who won. That's enough.

[edit] New section

For those who haven't noticed, I have put up a brief summary of the tournament results. This is not the overkill that was on the now-removed summary page, but is better than nothing.--Desmond Hobson 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The UK?

Why is the country of origin listed as "UK"? It originated in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.64.34.2 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Nope - it originated in the UK as Ant & Dec's Gameshow Marathon. Bourne 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)