Jump to content

Talk:Hollywood Game Night

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Episode table

[edit]

I made a new table for how we can (hopefully) list the episodes. Obviously, I only did this past episode because if nobody likes it, what's the point of doing it all?

No. in
series 		No. in
season 		Title Original airdate Left couch Amount won Right couch U.S. viewers
(millions)
Civilian Celebrity players Celebrity players Civilian
13 5 We'll Need to See Your TV ID January 27, 2014 Bernard Kravitz Padma Lakshmi, Michelle Trachtenberg, Michael Weatherly $25,000 Nate Berkus, Melanie Brown, Erika Christensen Brooke Camhi 4.56[1]

Thoughts? ~ Totaldramaman (talk · contribs) 01:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grid is pretty great. However, the only thing I would address is to add a sort of guide on top of the grids explaining what all the different colors or the bolding of celebrities name means. That would make it a lot clearer. It would let people know which team won, who was chosen for the final game and if they won the money. Right now, it looks a bit confusing. Hope that helps.184.160.203.195 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Frankly, I don't see why they are even considering deleting the list, but if they must, I'd rather the main article has the list on their page.Kaos 42 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference S02E04x05 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

EPISODES DELETED?!?!?!?

[edit]

Who deleted the episode list showing the date of each episode with who the guest stars were? This makes NO sense. It needs to be a part of this and needs to be returned now. 24.211.85.131 (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Game Night episodes for why the list was deleted. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Free Encyclopedia"... Right! I'm sorry, but that arguments are nonsense, someone decides that "doesn't provide any relevant guidance" or something like that and that's it? What harm can it make the page just existing? Whoever deleted the page is just abusing his "power". How can more information be worse in a encyclopedia? 181.29.236.116 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTCRUFT and read the 11 meanings. If that does not answer your question, nothing will. Cheers, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can "win" the argument, because obviously you know more about wikipedia and I'm not even a fluent English speaker. But as said in the discussion the list makes sense as any show of that style (QI was mentioned) and it doesn't "interest to a very limited number of people" because it's a very popular show and provides guidance to keep track of the episodes you watched, what happened in each one, etc. It's as "unencyclopaedic" as any episode list.
Again, you can probably make me look like an idiot with your bigger knowledge of the page and some technicalities. But I'm positive that the wikipedia policies/rules were meant to manage and improve this great site not to delete useful content over some guy(s) different opinions. 181.29.236.116 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to call you an idiot, or "win" the argument (although my school does offer Debate classes, which I have done well in (though that's a completely different discussion)), or anything like that, I'm just saying that individual results for most game shows are not notable enough to merit their own article. Read these for more info:
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me or anyone else, and I will answer them to the best of my ability. I have also posted a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links for more inexperienced editors. Cheers, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this article exhaustively lists all the games played on the show in what is glaringly obvious WP:LISTCRUFT (if I was concerned with that, which I'm not) -- and the consensus (consensus?) was to delete the episode list. This is a great example of dumb deletions of content by editors supposedly protecting Wikipedia. It's obviously wrong on every level. Maddening and short-sighted. Completely hurts Wikipedia to have done this. I hate this about Wikipedia editors. Shows a complete lack of understanding and common sense of what is usable and helpful on the encyclopedia. BrillLyle (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: You want a list? Go here for an episode list. That's what the game show wikis are for. We are not the game show wikis. We are Wikipedia, and to argue that this is "a complete lack of understanding and common sense of what is usable and helpful on the encyclopedia" falls under WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. To be honest, the list of games probably constitutes as excessive as well (@AldezD: should be able to explain my reasoning further if he's around?). This issue was last brought up over a year and a half ago and I have better things to do than to restart this debate. You can find these lists elsewhere; Wikipedia is not and should not be one of those places. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bentvfan54321: Totally disagree. This entry is now a joke and the decision to delete the hard work of editors is wrong. If you and other editors can't understand that then it's your limitation. Isn't the rule of thumb to not do harm? You're doing harm to Wikipedia. BrillLyle (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: You've been a member of Wikimania New York City, so I'm not going to question the fact that you know a lot about Wikipedia, but read WP:LISTCRUFT and take a look at the AFDs above. This is simple WP policy, and consistency should also be policy. Like I said, you can find a list of episodes on other cites, but that's not what WP is for. If you disagree with the guidelines, that's fine, but they're still the guidelines and need to be observed. To suggest that we're "doing harm to Wikipedia" by adhering to the policies makes no sense. I respect your opinion and appreciate your willingness to talk this out rather than recreating the article without any consensus or discussion. (Note that I am not the one who deleted it; I merely support the "delete" arguments presented in the AFD.) --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great courage and passion over the issue support 100% Quimar (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollywood Game Night. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Game Night/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Good day, I will be handling the review for this article. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free. Happy Thanksgiving! AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Comments

[edit]

Welcome to the review for Hollywood Game Night. I structure my reviews like a trial. My reviews are all about your voice as I will simply post issues and you will do the work solving them. If necessary I will make very minor copy edits to the article if I feel they don't need a whole bullet point dedicated to them. Anyway, I am looking forward to working with you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

[edit]
  • The lead paragraph could use some expansion and reworking especially this section "The series has generally received positive critical reception and earned relatively modest television ratings, while also inspiring several worldwide adaptions, as well as a party game and mobile app based on the show. The series' fifth season premiered on June 22, 2017."
  • You mention several times that the celebrities donate to a charity. If you can, is it possible to find the charities they are donating to?
  • " The non-celebrity player is designated captain of the team." Confused me, Expand more.
  • Update the number of episodes and the "as of date"
  • The entire "Games" section feels run on, as each sentence starts with "Other games include" or something similar.
  • "On August 1, 2011, NBC announced that they were developing the series, then under the name Celebrity Game Night.[6] The project's name was changed to Hollywood Game Night when it was ordered to series on December 18, 2012." Very confusing. Wrong words in some places.
  • Update the Production section for recent times. It seems the fifth season has started.
  • If possible, expand the Merchandise section.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Thank you for this. Will be spending most of the day with family but will look at these when I can. Happy Thanksgiving, –Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88:  Done everything, let me know how things look on your second pass through. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: I apologize for the delay, everything looks fantastic, the review chart will now begin its final stages. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review Chart

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Very Concise and Clear
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compiles
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Everything is sourced
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All sources are reliable
2c. it contains no original research. No original research, everything is sourced
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. All main aspects addressed
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stays on task
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Very Neutral
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No Edit Wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are tagged and are valid
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant
7. Overall assessment. Congratulations you passed

Closing Comments

[edit]

Congratulations on passing. Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic rest of the weekend. If you want, Ill even review your other nomination of "1v100". Thank you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Thank you! No sweat if you're busy (it is that time of year again), but I would greatly appreciate a review of 1 vs. 100 if you are up to it. Also, let me know if I can do anything for you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: Of course I will review it. Anything for you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_Game_Night&oldid=1207623968"