Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This article has recently been posted on fark.com. Please watch out for any trolls that may target this article. 17:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Clean up of Talk:The Price is Right

This talk page is out of date! Let's make The Price is Right a great page! If I clean up anything by mistake, just copy it back from the page history. And please use : ~~~~ to sign and date your comments. Plinko 15:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed out of date talk. Plinko 15:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I applaud your initiative, but it seems to be convention to move old talk to an archive and then link the archive. I suppose you can go through history if you really want to see archived talk, but you might want to consider having a prominently-linked archive just so people don't feel like their comments have gotten suppressed - PhilipR 19:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Restored talk archive deleted on 15:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC). Some of the discussion carried out today without the benefit of the discussions below. —Twigboy 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to The Price is Right

Let's rearrange the main page sections to have the Overview first: Overview > 1956 Show > 1972 Show > New Life in Primetime. Plinko 15:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Reorganized page outline. Plinko 05:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Restored talk archive

From the main page:

(Editor's note: there is no such game as "10 Questions." Perhaps the person who wrote this was thinking of "Ten Chances.")

Removed because--if it's wrong, it's wrong. Change it. There are no designated editors here; we designate ourselves editor by clicking "edit text of this page."  :-) --KQ 09:29 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Why did you remove

  • More commercials per hour, leaving less time for longer games.

As a Fremantle criticism?

The Price is Right page is getting unwieldy!

The page The Price is Right is becoming difficult to maintain. Since there were nearly half a dozen incarnations of the show in the United States alone, any elaboration specific to the most widely known 1972 daily version has to be prefaced by 'the 1972 version...'.

Is it time to make The Price is Right a disambiguation page of sorts and direct it to other pages, like:

  • The Price is Right (1956)
  • The Price is Right (1972 daily)
  • The Price is Right (1972 weekly)
  • The Nighttime Price is Right (1986)
  • The Nighttime Price is Right (1994)
  • The Price is Right (1981 Britian)

...and so on? (The above is just an idea of the page structure, and probably isn't 100% accurate.) I'm thinking of less of just a list and more of the contents of the 'Overview' section, linked to the individual shows. As it is, there is a lot to say about any number of these versions, but it will be impossible to elaborate too deeply, soon, with the length this document is liable to become.

So, questions. 1. Should the page be broken into smaller pages, by show, or left how it is? 2. If it should be broken up, what's the best way to differentiate the shows' entries?

Skybunny 21:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the length of the article and what to do with it:

I could see giving the 1950s-60s Bill Cullen version and any foreign versions of the show their own pages, but don't give separate pages to any of the post-1972 syndicated versions. The format of those shows didn't stray too far from the daytime show; the only difference being that they were 30 minutes long and there was no Showcase Showdown. (OK, the 1994 version had a Showdown and a one-player Showcase, but it was too short-lived -- only lasting half a season -- to justify little more than a mention on the main page.)

In my mind, most people are looking for the current version of the show when they're searching for "The Price is Right."

Yes, how about only one page for all older incarnations of the show? And one page for the current show, one page for pricing games.

Changes made

I think I've come up with a reasonable middle ground, now. TPIR 1956 is a separate article, now. The rest of the other minor variations of the show have its own article section, now, which can be expanded safely without confusion. The rest is all about 1972 now.

Hi, 12.216.17.229: Thanks for the suggestion. If you do read this, you may want to consider getting yourself a wiki login and password. I see you've done lots of article contributions. You'll probably find the 'watchlist' a handy feature to keep track of articles you like to contribute to, and people can respond to what you do on your own discussion page. All in all, it tends to make wiki life a little easier. Good luck, either way.

Skybunny 23:42, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Pricing Game Section

I've got a question about the pricing game section... one of the external links (GScentral) has a lot of the starting dates for pricing games... where exactly would I put those? Also, should the pricing games section be divided into retired and currently played games? It's already unwieldy as is, and there's a lot of them missing (a bunch of retired ones, really). Mo0 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GoldenRoad.net's FAQ [1] has a more accurate list of when each game premiered. As for the pricing games, I'd wait until the active games are completed before adding any more retired ones. Right now the only active games that don't have descriptions are: Master Key, On the Spot, Poker Game, Secret "X", Side by Side, Step Up, Swap Meet, Switch?, Time is Money, and 2 For the Price of 1. But with 70+ games in the rotation and almost 100 games having been played in the history of the show, I realize that this section is getting long. Iowahwyman 01:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'll get cracking on those tomorrow. I guess adding just a temporary list of which games are retired and which aren't wouldn't be a bad place to start on dividing them, would it? Mo0 09:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probability

“Questions of strategy natuarlly arise from this situation: When should you choose to spin again?”

I’d like to see someone well-versed in probability perform a more rigorous analysis. For example, assuming that the number you land on is random and assuming my calculations are correct (a big assumption), if the first spinner gets 60c in his first spin, he wins 9% of the time by staying and 16% of the time by spinning again, neglecting tying situations. I’m not sure at all about these numbers, though, which is why I ask someone more experienced for help.

GA Review

Overall, this is a pretty good article. There are a few specific things that are needed in order to improve it further to GA level (and beyond), but I think you are pretty close to GA. First, the quick version. Then, I'll give some suggestions as to how I think the article can be improved.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

The following are some suggestions I had as I read through the article:

General

  • There are references to TPIR, TPiR, and Price as alternate titles. Firstly, consistency is necessary between the first two: if you are going to use any acronyms, pick one and stick with it. Furthermore, any alternate titles that are used in the article should be mentioned and bolded in the lead as an alternate title (see WP:LS#Bold title for an example).
Y DoneTPIR is not an alternate title, just shorthand. All instances spelled out, except Price in other media section header. Should be acceptable since it is a headline.
  • There are a number of spelling mistakes that I found in the text: orginal → original; cancelation → cancellation; embarassment → embarrassment.
Y Done Got'em—Twigboy 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

  • "although Barker announced on 31 October 2006, that he would retire at the end of this" remove the comma
Y Done
  • "began on December 8" of what year?
Y Done
  • "The current format is based on the orginal 1956–65 US version of the show, which aired on NBC and later ABC from 1956 to 1965 and was hosted by Bill Cullen." no need to mention the years twice in the same sentence. Also, check spelling.
Y Done
  • Merge the second and fourth paragraphs and place after the third paragraph.
Y Done Fixed lede issues —Twigboy 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By article section

Pricing games
  • "Six pricing games are played per episode, and a variety of games are played, some more elaborate than others" is a bit awkwardly phrased.
Y Done Rephrased.—Twigboy 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other production staff
  • Incorporate text in parentheses ("Dobkowitz occasionally appears...") into the previous sentence.
Y Done—Twigboy 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Syndicated productions
  • "It was only when James' contract expired and the long-running Truth or Consequences ended production that Barker added the evening version to his chores." Perhaps duties is a better choice?
Y Done Agreed. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CBS primetime specials
  • "The situation with potential audience members before the Vegas show started with confusion, then quickly degraded almost to chaos; as such, another road trip is unlikely." It is unclear to me what the "situation with potential audience members" being referred to is.
Y DoneThis very likely did happen, but I can't find anything solid on it. Doesn't really speak to anything about the specials themselves, and it doesn't completely answer why no other on-the-road specials have been done. (Perhaps there are other factors?) To OR-ish for me, so I spiked it.—Twigboy 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Productions statistics
  • I think it might be better laid out the opposite way that it is now, in the form "text: number" rather than "number. text". This isn't critical though.
Question. I did it more as a personal style thing. Slightly nonconventional, but I thought it added a different flavor to the article. Comments? —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode Status
  • This section seems to have been inserted erroneously in the middle of the Price in other media section, thereby displacing the Live casino game section. If it is not vandalism, it should be likely moved into Production information.
  • According to WP:MSH#Capitalization, the section should be titled Episode status.
  • A space is needed between the 1st and 2nd sentences.
  • "(as does the syndicated nighttime Price is Right)" -- should this not be The Price is Right?

Y Done This section crept in after nomination. I'm not sure what it adds to one's understanding of the program.—Twigboy 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

References

  • Reference #3: Remove "(US game show)" from the text. Also, the link does not point to the correct IMDB page.
Y Done Revised footnote for an "umbrella" footnote for releated sections at IMDB.—Twigboy 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference #7 is a broken link
Y DoneAck! I hate to see this one go, but there is no solid link in place, and it's not in the Wayback Machine. We'll see you another day, perhaps. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • References #10-13: convert to use {{cite episode}} template?
Question. These do use the {{cite episode}} template. Since there are no episode titles, it has to deviate slightly from the proscribed format. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice that. I think what was throwing me off was the redlinks, and I'm not sure why they're even red -- the airdate parameter should be in YYYY-MM-DD (2007-04-19) or DD Month YYYY (19 April 2007) format, as it is being automatically wikilinked by the template. Is it possible to add in an episode/season number, or is that type of data not available on a per episode level. Also, are there any other parameters of cite episode that can be used? —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Episode numbers and production numbers are not generally known; not to say some show geek (no offense, please) wouldn't be able to dig it up. I'm not sure what the production number would add to the casual reader's understanding of the reference. (Contrasted to DVDs of every imaginable 6+ episode show, where the episode data is available.)—Twigboy 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; it just would be helpful to have some sort of reference point, but if meaningful information is not available, then I guess what is done now will have to make-do. It might be worthwhile at some point (I mean, it's not a GA-failing point) to investigate how other game show articles handle this, if they do. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference #16: likely a copyright violation
Y Done Removed statement until more solid reference material shows up.—Twigboy 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a number of sections that contain no inline references at all: Taping; Production company; the whole Broadcast history section is completely unsourced; most of Price in other media is unsourced as well.
Y Done—Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For the Bloopers... item about exploiting game play, it would be better to add a reference for each event. If anything, move the parenthesized note "(which are explained in each pricing game's article)" into a <ref>, but it would be preferable to have references for each of these on this article, especially since I found it hard to find details on the games' articles, plus, those articles are not necessarily referenced, either (or use Youtube videos, which are copyright violations).
Y DoneBest possible reference, outside of Youtube links, is an episode reference itself. Perhaps these references can be shored up, but I was coming up blank. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Some citations possibly unreliable (specifically the golden-road.net cites, which appears to be a fansite?); however, for the purposes of GA they are acceptable.
Question. If not a GA issue, I would like to hold and start a discussion after GA Review on the veracity of reference sites. Definitely a point that I have wrestled with and changed my mind on over time. —Twigboy 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up. Each of the three "fan" sites that have been included for references have some sort of "backstage" knowledge of the program. For example, Golden-Road.net conducts a few chat sessions with the producer, which legitimizes the site's content. I have been pretty judicious about the references from fan groups — these seem to be very reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twigboy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Follow-up to the follow-up. A discussion about the quality of sources is below.—Twigboy 02:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall

  • Could use some copyediting
Y Done Read top to bottom. Pretty much each section drops the cow before it gets too long-winded. Lot of extraneous cruft is now gone.—Twigboy 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix up the references and add some more
Y DoneAlways could use more, but I shored up a few weak areas.—Twigboy 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As such, I have put the GA nomination on hold for one week, pending repairing the above, which I think is doable. Once the fixes have been made, I'd be glad to approve the article for GA. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I have reviewed your changes, and have decided to promote this article to GA status. With this in mind, I still think that there are improvements that should be made to this article. It was still in need of a copyedit, but I have taken care of this for you (see diff). More importantly, however, is the fact that there are still a lot of references that should be added to this article; this is enough of a concern that it almost caused me to fail the article. I have added one new reference for you. What you need to do is read through the entire article, and for any item that is not common knowledge, find and add a reference.

That being said, congratulations for taking this article to GA status! —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review and performing some much-needed last steps. (Sometimes is gets a bit difficult to think of ways to clean up the copy when you've looked at it so long!) References are, indeed lacking, and hopefully we can shift the focus to cleaning that up. I appreciate your time and consideration!—Twigboy 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of this statement

"Since the January 1994 cancellation of Caesars Challenge, The Price Is Right has been the only daytime game show airing on any U.S. broadcast television network. "

I'm still concerned about the complete accuracy of this statement. I've modified it to include "broadcast" because of examples like Win Ben Stein's Money which as it won Daytime Emmys for several years in a row, indicates that well, it's considered a daytime show. Since it was on Comedy Central that means it's a cable network show, not a broadcast one, so I suppose the qualifier of broadcast television is enough, but I still think it'd be worth noting the various syndicated programming available in game shows, just to make sure that this statement is fully accurate. Are there any suggestions for how to say that? FrozenPurpleCube 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struggled with that statement myself. Showing my age, my brain defaulted to "broadcast network" when I saw "network"; the change you made is indeed required for accuracy. The point being made by the statement was that networks (broadcast, because in this context we are going back before the proliferation of cable) ceased producing game shows for daytime entirely, despite being strong programming and production choices in the previous decades. There are several reasons (all of which are OR, so not article-worthy) such as demographic shifts, production costs, etc.
That being said, it is an unsourced statement, which lost a {{cn}} somewhere along the line. (I think it was excised for lack of source and then reappeared.) While devoted television watchers can say, indeed, this is true, there is not (yet) a source that shows it. Primetime broadcast schedules have articles, but daytime schedules are hard to come by.—Twigboy 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's been a bit hard to find sources for the statement, the best I've come up with have been Usenet posts. Some of them even mention the reasons for the cancellation, and while they're probably true, they're not quite reliable. Maybe there will be something in a TPIR retrospective article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement about TPiR being the only game show on broadcast network daytime since 1994 is a simple statement of fact. If you want to do a historical fact check of daytime TV schedules, you can check the archives of a newspaper that carries them (which is almost any daily paper, at least on Sundays). The New York Times would have the schedules for the NYC stations, which generally clear the entire network schedule (no local pre-emptions). You could also check the tables in the most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (Schwartz, Ryan and Wostbrock; Checkmark Books, 1999). But I don't think (IMO) that in order to make the above statement, it's necessary to verify and document that no other game show has been aired by a broadcast network in the last 13-1/2 years. It's something that's easily observable.JTRH 12:45, 29 May 2007(UTC)
To clarify the above paragraph, the Sunday edition of a daily paper usually contains a TV magazine which gives the complete schedules for every day of the week. The way I phrased it above didn't entirely make sense. In any case, the statement about network schedules can be easily fact-checked.JTRH 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality of citations

While I am not claiming ownership, I wanted to express a few finer points on the references cited in this article. I feel that this will help assist in the addition of new sources, based on the prevailing opinion of reliability.

  • What constitutes the "official page" at CBS: Most of the information presented is true, although some is dated. Fans have noted that some of the more trivial points are not too accurate, for reasons unknown.
  • The pages for The Price Is Right at the Internet Movie Database have been cited heavily, as they are the more detailed source for the television industry.
  • The Golden-Road.net is a fansite that has been included here because of its chats with the producer, Roger Dobkowitz [2] [3] [4]. The principal contributors have had extraordinary and exclusive backstage access, particularly during the final episodes of Bob Barker's tenure. This is, in this editor's opinion, a de facto recognition of the site.
  • TPIR.tv has also been cited several times for its ability to present clear, concise ad-free references. The site's author is a former contestant.
  • Game Show Utopia has a concise writeup (compared to other sources) of the Tom Kennedy-hosted version of the show.
  • J-shea.com is cited because of several program "artifacts" (such as staging sheets and announcer copy) and otherwise well-sourced information.
  • Episode citations, when known are by episode airdate, as there are no episode names and production numbers (or some sort of season serial numbering system) is generally known. (Production numbers do exist, but they are not cited as this does not give the reader any meaningful information.)
  • References for the Price in other media section are the best or only available sources.
  • User Chris319 is a former employee of the show's production company (Goodson-Todman Productions) and has corrected various inaccuracies and filled in details based on firsthand knowledge and observation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris319 (talk • contribs) 04:37
Not for the appreciation of the perspective you offer, but it is Wikipedia policy to avoid first-hand accounts (WP:OR). References to reliable sources that are themselves first-hand accounts are acceptable. Do edit to correct inaccuracies, but please have a source to back up your assertions, even though you know for absolute certain that you are right. Thanks, and I look forward to your insightful contributions.—Twigboy 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy then, if (TPIR producer) Roger Dobkowitz himself entered information on this page, it would be considered less valid than secondhand information obtained from a fan which had been published on golden-road.net. With regard to tpir.tv cited above, Wikipedia editorial policy favors the authority of a former contestant over the authority of a former employee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris319 (talk • contribs) 17:40
That is correct, as you state it, but there's more to it than that. Let's take that same example from a different angle: Assume Mr. Dobkowitz is interviewed in TV Guide or on MSNBC. The interview is a reliable source, because the information was presented first in another forum. The information gleened from the interview would be entirely welcomed here. Wikipedia (or any encylopedia, for that matter) is not the type of forum for citing oneself; any editor who questions the verifiability of a particular statement could not, because there are no sources to check. Now, let's go one step further. This article contains a section about criticism and controversy of the program, as any balanced article should. It does not cast a flattering light on the program or its staff. If the producer is also a Wikipedian, he might be inclined to make changes that are conflicts of interest. It may seem harmless, but, you wouldn't want the White House staff editing the article on George W. Bush. These may seem hard lines to be drawn, but they are some of the more rigid areas of Wikipedia policy, as they have been debated for some time now.
Regarding the use of TPIR.tv as a more favorable source: The citations revolve around the site's collection of media that the author has claimed fair use for. As the site has been around for quite a while, the claim of fair use has not been challenged by the copyright owners. It has given the editors the ability to change an assertion of "I saw it on the show. I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE!!!@!1!!" to "Here is a source that you can verify." It is not a source that has been given greater weight than published accounts from the production staff.
Sorry to be long-winded. I hope this answers your concerns. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave them on my my talk page. Thanks! (Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts!) —Twigboy 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There will be no further posts from me. Chris319 11:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditional press are cited when possible, but it is typically limited to general overview material. It is my opinion that the sources are the best available and provide the reader with a concise understanding of the program. Thoughts? —Twigboy 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) • updated 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "official page" is produced and maintained by the network staff, or their contractor; that's what makes it official. However, as you've noted, it's riddled with information which is outdated or simply wrong. I once e-mailed that page a question about the show's history, and they gave me an answer which I knew to be inaccurate. (I still didn't know the answer to what I wanted, but I knew that it wasn't what they were telling me.) I guess editorial judgment is called for in the use of the "official" site.JTRH 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Barker retires as host

Bob Barker has retired as host of The Price Is Right on June 6, 2007. [5]. DragonFire1024 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission ... unfortunately, this source doesn't have anything more than what is already here. Most of the articles leading up to his retirement have rehashed a lot of the same points. I'm happy to get your submission, but it was more appropriately summarized in the lede and expanded in the section Bob Barker, emcee. Since this was already sourced, there wasn't much more to add. However, I updated the Wikinews link in that section, which does refer to the source article that you named. Thanks again, DragonFire1024. —Twigboy 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

pricing game trivia

it says in most of the pricing game page histories that the trivia has been chopped off and put in a separate section, but just WHERE IS IT? 24.206.74.247 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are disappearing from Wikipedia in general with relevant information being incorporated into the article prose. This is per WP:TRIVIA which is a part of the Manual of Style. So you will find, as an example, that the Range Game, has the running gag about the machine taking 37 hours to restart moved into the article prose (since it happens on just about every playing, editors found that notable). But the fact that the game was played for a range (stove) once was deemed non-notable. Trivia such as that is suitable for fansites, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For further information on how to handle trivia sections, refer to WP:HTRIV. Thanks!—Twigboy 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

but you said that you put it in a SEPARATE SECTION. 24.206.74.247 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not me, but TheHYPO placed this in his edit summary: (Wikipedia policy is to avoid trivia sections. I have incorporated signficant trivia into an article format). I didn't check all 102 pricing games, but everything stayed within the article or was deleted entirely. If you have a more specific example, I can give you a better answer, perhaps.—Twigboy 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Protection request

With all the vandalism that's been appearing on this page in the last few days, is it possible that this page could possibly be protected from the vandals for a while? Thanks. Leandar 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Verb tenses

Bob Barker's episodes are still airing in reruns. Drew Carey hasn't started work yet. I think it's premature to change every Barker reference to the past tense. Thanks. JTRH 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit conflicted over that. Obviously the article is taking on more Drew Carey material, mostly future tense. In some instances in the text — since the torch has officially been passed — it is appropriate to shift the tense to Barker was and Carey is, even though there isn't an episode (or even a rehearsal) in the can yet.—Twigboy 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Carey continuing the spay-and-neuter announcement

Barker's end of the phone call where Carey said he will continue the spay-and-neuter announcement was actually on Entertainment Tonight. There's a clip of it on their site, but I'm not reverting Twigboy's removal of the statement; yes, it's sourced, but I don't think it's noteworthy. JTRH 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to see that it's sourced. It may be a good idea to include that until he actually hosts a show, just to make sure the message stays and not a hollow promise. But, I'm not offended with including it with a citation.—Twigboy 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for continued removal of "New Orleans" trip information

Twig, I'm trying to understand why you are doing this, and I have yet to get a reason from you. I feel putting it back in helps people to understand the whole situation better. The deal about the repeat in 2005 that had a trip from NO that originally aired in 2004 doesn't make sense without this information. I have no idea why you keep reverting it, you seem to be a rather unstable indivdual on this issue. Hdayejr 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are searching for reasons, and I have pulled these from the edit summaries in the article history:
  • 21:23, July 27, 2007 TPIRFanSteve (The New Orleans information was already removed once for not being particularly noteworthy in the long run...and on top of that, there's no way both of those tapedates are right.)
  • 11:57, August 2, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 147575337 by TPIRFanSteve (talk))
  • 12:28, August 2, 2007 Twigboy (rv per discussion at Talk:The Price Is Right (US game show)/Archive4 -- if you strongly feel otherwise, please bring it up at the current talk page)
  • 12:52, August 2, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 148745723 by Twigboy (talk))
  • 14:17, August 2, 2007 Twigboy (rv per valid reference to prior discussion. Hdayejr reverted with the auto-generated edit summary. pls discuss on talk if strongly opposed)
  • 11:56, August 4, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 148766058 by Twigboy (talk)WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?)
  • 13:29, August 4, 2007 Twigboy (i discussed the merits of this rv already. with the exception of "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM" you have not. Invitation to discuss on talk still open)
I will also refer back to this very discussion in the talk archives from June 2006 for this article. Of particular note, one editor stated about the point: Not to 'trivialize', but this will be a footnote in two weeks. There was consensus then to keep this to its basic information; it is the core of the "controversy," making any other information of delayed airings really irrelevant. The delayed airings weren't themselves controversial, but a mere rescheduling of taped episodes out of sensitivity to New Orleanians. The episodes that did air just after Katrina were mildly controversial, marginally worthy of mention here, but programs that are pulled from West Coast airings because of content typically have some element of controversy to them. I hope you now understand the rationale behind this approach.
As for your incivility here and elsewhere towards me, I have left that to your talk page—Twigboy 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nighttime Price Is Right

Copied from Talk:The Nighttime Price Is Right to preserve in case of deletion.

Sorry to appear deletionist, but is there anything that separates this version from the daytime version other than its host? There is a brief summary at The Price Is Right (US game show) which seems suffice for this subject. The other primetime/syndicated entrants that arguably give reason to be split off the main article:

Point being, if these episodes had aired in the daytime (other than the host change) would anyone know the difference? I just don't think there's enough to merit a new article. Just my 2¢.—Twigboy 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag you placed on the article. This is not a well-named article, among other issues, but it should be improved (or merged with the main The Price Is Right article), not deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I considered {{merge}} first, but all (or nearly all) the material comes right from the main The Price Is Right article). Reconsider?—Twigboy 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not, so as you suggest, I will tag as {{merge}}. I don't, however, see anything new in this article that is sourced, so anything that is merged over would compromise the GA status of the main article. Keep in mind, this program is still just The Price Is Right — the only differences are that it happened to air in the evening, was distributed through syndication, and it had a different host. The title was the same and the format was the same. All of this points to the need for a summary section in the main article, but not a new article.—Twigboy 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. JTRH 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No merge. Just delete. The entire premise of the article is incorrect -- it lists the 1972-1980 and 1985-1986 runs as a single series. -TPIRFanSteve 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Per the above, I'm converting the {{merge}} tag back to {{prod}}. There has been little activity since its inception other than maintenance and unsubstantiated reverting of corrections. —Twigboy 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD

I reverted the following edit from the "'Price' in other media" section:

On September 3, 2007 BCI annouced that a The Price is Right DVD is in the works and is set to released in Spring 2008. Read it here at: [6]

I have a concern with the reliability of the source, seeing as the web page with BCI Eclipse press releases does not include this. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources (WP:RS), particularly in this case where the chain of verifiability stops with "conversations" the blogger had with the company. This is not to say it isn't true — it just would need more substantiation. That, and the section needs to be written in more of an encyclopedic tone.—Twigboy 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Amazon has it as a pre-order item right now scheduled to be released in late March 2008. That isn't a reliable source? 71.72.172.220 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Perfect Shows

While watching the first Drew Carey episode (which was a perfect show), during the second Showcase Showdown, Carey mentions that this episode was the 77th perfect show, with 76 prior to it. Before I edited it to reflect this, it stated '75' prior to this episode. Any information on this? - Enzo Aquarius 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode count

I'm just wondering if it's really necessary for people to update the episode count every single day that a new show airs. JTRH 01:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very important to have an episode count accurate as of 11:01 a.m. Eastern Time EVERY DAY!! Sorry, I seem to have left my sarcasm machine on :) —Twigboy 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I refactored the episode-count parameter to have a month/year endpoint, rather than daily, with a plea to observe this for sanity in a hidden note. This saves 20+ revisions per month and less vandal patrol needed on my part.—Twigboy 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind updating the episode-count once a month so that this page does't have 20+ revisions per month which will avoid vandalism. What concerns me is, who is going to keep a count how many episodes there are? You cannot just assume that because this month has twenty-one weekday dates that one episode will air on each of theose weekday dates equaling twenty-one episodes. Last month, two of the weekday dates (the day of Thanksgiving and the day after Thanksgiving), an episode didn't air. I'm just worried that the count will not be exact. If I had to choose, I would choose to keep it daily.
Does anyone know how many episodes of this show has aired this month (December 2007) only?—Gibsonj338 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One problem with this: who is going to keep a count how many episodes there are? This supposes that Wikipedia becomes the primary source for the episode count, which is a no-no. (If I am at work, how do I know that an original episode aired today? How does any editor know that an episode is not a re-run?) I would guess that the Golden-Road.net would be the most likely to have an updated count — especially since there is primary sourcing from the production staff there. Also, does the reader gain any new understanding knowing that the program has aired 6,767 shows as opposed to 6,765 through November or even "more than 6,700 shows"? Contrast this to the Today show which the infobox proclaims, "20,652 (as of October 26, 2007)," with my emphasis.—Twigboy (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Valid point. Actually, the show page at CBS.com has a running list of air dates of new and repeated episodes, so whether or not the day's show is new can be verified without watching it unless something happens at the last minute (e.g., a Presidential news conference pre-empts the show in the Eastern time zone and the West gets a re-run substituted as a result). Golden-road.net is a reliable source, and TPIRFanSteve is a major contributor both there and here. But updating the number daily really doesn't add much to the article. For example, this morning, I revised the Wheel of Fortune page to say "approx. 4600" episodes have aired. I think that's accurate enough. (And I'm not going back tomorrow to change it to "approx. 4601"). JTRH (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And not to make this arbitrary, as this serves another purpose: If there is an edit attributed to an anonymous editor with a zero-byte change (greyed-out zero in the watchlist), you can't tell without going into the article if it is an episode count update ... ɯsılɒpuɒʌ s,ʇı ʄı ɹo—Twigboy (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Or here's another thought: the Barker section of the article could list the number of episodes he hosted, which won't need to be changed, and the data could be removed from the infobox altogether until Carey reaches a milestone - his 100th should air around March or April 2008. JTRH (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Link repair

Some deadlinks (and some live ones) are being pruned from the references and replaced with {{fact}}. I have replaced them, but please list dead links on the Talk page if you cannot find a substitute or (as in most cases) a new URL. Thanks for your help.—Twigboy 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Memorable moments - Halloween Special

This morning, I added a blurb about the first ever PiR Halloween special under Memorable Moments & Bloopers. I figured it was justified an entry because the April Fools showcases were mentioned in the same section, but perhaps somebody could better word it than myself - like adding that Drew was dresssed as a vampire, for example. --Mr. Brown 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good rationalization, with a citation, no less! While I'm not a fan of instantly declaring memorable events, it fits in the spirit of the April Fool's showcases as you state. I think there are some images/videos on the Freemantle Price is Right page, which might add further citable material.—Twigboy 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)