Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)/Archive 5

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.

Contents

Classic Price Returning to GSN?

I heard that they may show classic price is right beginning this fall on GSN on the weekends. 70.20.70.168 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And where, pray tell, did you hear this? 'Cause if it was on GSN.com's forums, that's really not a reliable source. -TPIRFanSteve 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in writing, yet. But given the fact that the new GSN executive has actuall brought back classics to the schedule not seen in years (TTD, Trivia Trap, Now You See It, etc.), it is not out of the realm of possibility. He may just surprise us. Hdayejr (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Not the same thing. GSN doesn't have the rights to air The Price Is Right even if they want to. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yolanda image

This article's image of Yolanda Bowsley is being discussed on IFD at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 27#Image:TPiR yolanda.jpg. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Steve Gavazi

I've reported his repeated reverts this evening to the adminstrators and it'll be dealt with shortly. The "3 no win" was not a problem until he thought he owned this page

Hdayejr (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a problem because there was absolutely no way to confirm it. It's a stat that was created out of thin air about two years ago with nothing to back it up.
Of course, that's not why re-added it, anyway. You only changed it because I was the one who took it out. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DennisJames.jpg

Image:DennisJames.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Starring... Barker, Kennedy, James... and then Carey?

I noticed that in the infobox, for the "Starring" information, every possible host is listed before current host, Drew Carey. I don't know if this was intentional or not - the only possible logic I can see behind it is chronological.

But wouldn't it make more sense to list Carey first, considering he is the current host? I don't know how other TV shows list their former stars; I have not looked as of yet. But the way it is right now, we give two guys who hosted syndicated nighttime versions that most folks don't even remember more credit than the current host. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is a lot "busier" than it used to be. Until recently, Barker and Carey were the only hosts listed, and Barker's listing simply said (1972-2007) instead of having separate details for each version of the show. Barker and Carey were listed chronologically (after a revert war), which I assume is why the person who added the Barker details and the entries for James and Kennedy inserted them in chronological order. My suggestion, though there's no real logic to it that I can explain, would be either to put Carey ahead of James and Kennedy (but still behind Barker), or have an entry for Carey as the current host followed by a "Formerly Starring" entry for the rest (if the infobox format supports that). Thoughts? JTRH (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the template, and the infobox doesn't support anything like "Formerly starring", unfortuantely. I did notice the results of the revert war, as there's a huge comment in big bold print in the wiki that basically says "Don't move this".
I also looked at other game & television shows and their infoboxes. Wheel of Fortune (US game show), for example, lists current stars in chronological order, and then former stars last. Jeopardy! does the same. I'm sure I could find more examples.
I just think its a little ridiculous that Kennedy and James, whom most people don't even remember hosting any version of The Price is Right, get more billing than the current host. If some people had their way, Doug Davidson would be listed above current host Carey. --Mr. Brown (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not have it in reverse chronological order? Carey (2008), Barker (2007), Kennedy (1986), then James (1977)? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Scott's on to something, but I'll leave it to someone else to make the change if they desire. JTRH (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm afraid to add or remove anything. There are some users here who think they own this particular article (contrary to Wikipedia policy) and if something is changed, they'll pitch a hissy fit. This isn't meant to offend anybody, especially those who have contributed so much to this article, but I do believe some users are being overly possessive. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me that the infobox is absorbing more information than it was intended. It's just an overview — that's why Cheers doesn't list recurring characters. Carey and Barker are the primary hosts, and we should leave it at that. The article will then get into the supporting details about James, Kennedy and Davidson. Same thing with the length of the program. It's only necessary to list 60 minutes, because over 90% of the shows were that length. Since this has gone back and forth, I'm going to be bold and make the change—Twigboy (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jump the Shark" reference

The article mentions that The Price Is Right is one of various shows to have been ranked by the "Jump the Shark" website as one to have "never jumped." This is a valid point, but the same website also has ranked the show to have "jumped the shark," with more votes in favor of it having jumped the shark than never jumped. I think it would be fair for the page to at least mention this fact, as the statistics on that site have changed. Either that should occur or the "Jump the Shark" reference should be removed, because otherwise it is a little inaccurate to only mention the site's previous voting that the show never jumped, while not mentioning that the voting is now that it has jumped. JamesEarlCarterJunior (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe for a while it had something to the effect of "Prior to Barker's retirement," however, the Jump The Shark website, despite having more votes for Jumped for "Exit... Stage Left (Bob Barker)" is still listed in the site's "Never Jumped" category, even though it now has more jumped votes. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Since almost every show on JtS is considered to have JtS, if TPiR is no longer in the Never Jumped category, there's no reason to keep the reference in this article at all. It's non-notable. JTRH (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is still in the Never Jumped category with 739 votes; it is also in the "Exit Stage Left" category for Barker's departure (now exceeding 800 votes) and Dian's departure. Perhaps a caveat, which was originally there, needs to be added rather than removing the reference all together. --Mr. Brown (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
I don't think its rating on Jump the Shark is worthy of the amount of detail that adding a caveat would provide. If it can't be described in one simple sentence which doesn't contain the word "but," I'm for bagging it altogether. JTRH (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And having just re-read the sentence, I took it out. Feel free to argue. JTRH (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)