Talk:Password Plus and Super Password

Need to split these

These are two different programs. Really no reason in my opinion why they can't be two separate articles.Heismanhoosier (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? They're played the exact same way. The consensus is no split. If you split, you have two useless stubs. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Premiere

Scrabble premiered in July 1984, not September 1984

OK, discussing the proposed split

I'm against it. The shows are virtually identical, and this isn't a long article at all. Each individual title redirects here, so there's no confusion. Lambertman 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The identical formats make a split completely unnecessary. --ChrisP2K5 07:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had watched the show, you would know that there are multiple (while small) difference that I think merits its own page. Of course, that assumes you know what the word "identical" means. Modor (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Modor

I have watched the show, Mark. And I see two shows that are played just about as the same as any two shows can be. Here's an idea: don't troll pages. Don't assume facts not in evidence. And more importantly, don't think I'm not going to Zink about this one. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, split this article! Password Plus and Super Password were two shows with two different emcees. If you're going to insist that this article stay merged, then you need to go to the pages for CSI: Miami and CSI: New York and insist that they, too, be merged together. They're the same format, after all, RIGHT? Justinthebull (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not split this article. This article is a very managable size. The largest section is the rules section which would be mostly duplicated anyway if you split the articles. There is no good reason to split. CSI shows have different plots, characters, and episodes. Game show articles don't discuss plots or episodes, and only lists personell - no character bios or descriptions. Furthermore, as the these shows are decades old, there isn't a lot of impending NEW info for this article. Until someone has something to add that will make the article much longer, there's no reason for a split that will just duplicate a lot of information. Similarly, What's My Line? is one article for both versions, and I've Got A Secret is one article for something like 5 versions. Same with To Tell The Truth. Not only are the rules essentially the same, but the shows' histories are fairly linked, giving good reason for a shared article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) The_HYPOModor (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Modor

Exactly. Justinthebull, straw man arguments will NOT help you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And misuse of supercilious buzzword terms makes you look like a complete douchebag, Mr. Palmer. You're embracing a double standard, and it almost seems like you've chosen to do so simply because Mark Odor supports the opposite. Do NOT attempt to draw me into your puerile little flame wars, child; I will have none of it. This will be my last word on the matter. Justinthebull (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Split

I feel that this page should probably be split into two. I see the brief interlude between 2 users here, which does not convince me that there is any consensus at the moment to whether the pages should be kept like this. While the shows are similar, they are not identical enough to warrant a bunching like this. There was a somewhat condescending tag at the top of the article saying "we will remove any split tags" that appears to violate WP:OWN to a great degree. These are 2 different shows/series, and plausible articles can be written on both, and it is probably best to be that way. I hope that other users of all sorts will contribute to the talk, and I hope that for the time being, we can keep the split tag until a firm consensus is reached. Biggspowd 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Both shows used passwords. Both shows used puzzles. Both shows had two celebrities, four for charity weeks. Both shows had rolling jackpots (Plus in late 1981). I personally don't see how we need to do ANOTHER split, since both shows are really almost identical. FamicomJL 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IT IS THE EXACT SAME SHOW. There is one or two differences, but both of these shows have exactly the same format. You can call it a violation if you want, but there is no need for a split tag. --ChrisP2K5 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now, no one else has said anything about a split. Considering that the majority want to leave the article as is, I think it should stand as it is. --ChrisP2K5 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Password

The tournament of Losers has aired on GSN.

--24.228.70.72 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)nextbarker

Illegal horns on Cram?

I don't remember hearing those horns on Cram

--24.228.70.72 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)nextbarker

Fair use rationale for Image:PasswordPlus.jpg

Image:PasswordPlus.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent anonymous edits

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "The Super Password Company" actually developed the show. I'm fairly sure it, "The Family Feud Company," and their kind were just a company (LLC?) made up of all the organizations and individuals that held rights to the show. This way, only one legal organization held the rights, even if many individuals wanted control. I could be wrong, though.

In regards to the capitalization of CA$HWORD, I'm not sure if the on-screen graphic was capitalized on purpose or because of technical deficiency. I'm assuming good faith on today's revision, so I made the rest of the section consistent on capitalization. If anyone disagrees strongly, feel free to let me know. LinkTiger 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

These edits were from the same person who, through several IP socks, have also constantly reedited interstate exit lists; insists that the title in TV stations' infoboxes includes calls with "-TV" and "-DT", even if the station only existed in the 1950s; and of course, signing each and every article he edits. As for "The Super Password Company", it was merely a dummy company within Mark Goodson Productions, responsible only for Super Password, for financial purposes. Also, that "company" appears only in the copyright. If you see this again where it shouldn't be, revert without prejudice. -- azumanga 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Split proposed 10/07

With the next revival, this article should either be split into Password Plus, Super Password, and Million Dollar Password or merged into Password (TV series). --Jnelson09 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose Password Plus and Super Password are the exact same, with minor differences, so there's no reason to make no new articles. And the reason why the article was made was because they were both getting too big for the Password article. It is fine so far. We don't know what format Million Dollar Password is even going to be in. Just be patient and see if it's a whole new format. FamicomJL 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed MANY TIMES now. Each time, the consensus is NO SPLIT. STOP ADDING SPLIT TAGS TO THE PAGE. --ChrisP2K5 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SuperPassword.jpg

Image:SuperPassword.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And done. My mistake in the first place, anyways. LinkTiger (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

I would like to suggest moving the article to Password spinoffs or Password (spinoffs), or if you prefer the terminology, Password revivals/Password (revivals), as, with the new series coming out, this title is no longer applicable for that series. TheHYPO (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't presume to speak for this article's editor community, but personally, I think we should wait to reorganize until there is more information on the exact nature of the latest revival. Although we know it "incorporates elements" of these series, we don't yet know exactly what that means. That said, the idea is definitely a valid one. For everyone's information, Million Dollar Password currently redirects to the relevant section in the Password (TV series) article, not this one. I'd love to hear more suggestions from others on how to proceed. LinkTiger (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a direct opinion on whether MDP should be in this article or the Password article - but it should not be in this article if it is going to redirect to Password.

Either this becomes the article for all spinoffs, or it remains for just PP and SP because they happen to be essentially the same game. If that is the case, MDP should not even be mentioned in this article (unless relevant to the text) and all information should be relegated to the Password article. Should MDP ever become notable enough for its own article, it can be spunoff from password. Right now there is more info (marginally) in this article than in Password. If this is going to be the article for MDP, the title needs to change. So those seem to me to be the two options to discuss: cut MDP from this article and move relevant info back to the PW article, or rename this article as suggested in the first post TheHYPO (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any new opinions on this? Since noone cares. I will execute one of the plans myself unless more opinions surface TheHYPO (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I say, at least wait until we know the format of MDP. Lambertman (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what the format will be, or when the show will premiere. Any act is easily undoable should MDP be a P+/SP clone. Wikipedia is based on what is known at the present, and shouldn't anticipate knowledge (hence, number of episodes in infoboxes are always as-aired, not the known number produced, for exampl). I think the most appropriate option right now would be to move everything to the Password page, and off this page, which, by name, is clearly for only those two spinoffs. It should not have MDP on it. If MDP gets enough information to support its own page, it can spin one off. In retrospect of the previous discussion, This page is long enough without another spinoff unless MDP ends up being only a slight modification of these formats. TheHYPO (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

MDP is not going to be anywhere near either the original or the spinoffs, from what I've been hearing. It will probably need to be on its own separate page once done. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Is there any explaination for how Password Plus could both be doing poorly enough to merit cancellation, and still be revived (on the same network, in the same format) two years later? It reminds me of how the weekly series What's My Line? was finally beginning to get old and started to lose ratings, and ended after 17 years; and then the very next season they started a 5-days-a-week syndicated version. TheHYPO (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened was, Password Plus was canceled along with Battlestars and Blockbusters. It was not due to ratings, it was due to a poor move by NBC executives. --Jnelson09 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be any more specific? I doubt an executive said "I'm going to make a poor move and cancel a high rated show". Was there a rationale for cancelling those shows other than them doing poorly such that at least Password was seen as marketable 2 seasons later? TheHYPO (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe the bigger question is why did they bring back Battlestars first, just under a year after it left the air?

Allen's hole in the stage

I'm watching "Play It Back: '70s Game Shows" on GSN and they showed a SP clip where a contestant walks to her seat (on the right side of the screen) and falls through the hole in the stage. "Why is there a hole in the stage, you might ask?", they run the clip and Allen says that she fell through his hole. It's put there so Allen doesn't appear to tower over the contestants and celebrities. Warrants a mention here as part of a trivia section? Macshill (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

No, because trivia sections are frowned down upon by Wiki standards. Modor (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Modor

Kerry Ketchum

Patrick Quinn AKA Kerry Ketchum is an important name to put in here. Any questions?--E2e3v6 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Still trivial. WikiLubber (talk)

Trivial?! What does that mean, man?--E2e3v6 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Ketchum incident

As the Kerry Ketchum incident is sourceable, I believe it should remain in this article. User:AldezD's claim that this article should be limited to production is specious, not backed up by policy, and should be ignored. pbp 17:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's sourced does not mean it belongs here. Others who have committed crimes have appeared on television and have been recognized by third parties leading to their arrest. There have likely been other game show contestants who committed crimes. The crime itself is not related to Super Password, and the production of the show has no relation to his arrest. This article content should be limited to information that directly relates to Password Plus and Super Password. AldezD (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim that "the production of the show has no relation to his arrest" seems a little off, as the sources suggests there is a direct connection between his appearance on the show and his arrest. The claim "there have likely to have been..." is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and therefore not any grounds for removal. And, as I noted on my talk page, it is not necessary to confine this article to production only. pbp 17:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ketchum could have been recognized if he appeared on any television broadcast. It's coincidental that he appeared specifically on Super Password and was later arrested. He was not arrested because of his participation in the game and did not commit any crime as a contestant. The crimes are not related to the television program. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In regard to this edit—Rodney Alcala meets WP:N and is mentioned in The Dating Game article in a one-sentence anecdote among others who were contestant "before becoming famous" and as a bullet in the Guests section. Additionally, Alcala was not caught because of his appearances on the program—according to the article, his appearances aired during his crimes and after his arrest. Conversely, Ketchum does not meet the same WP:N requirements, and an entire section is currently dedicated to the subject within this article.

Again, Others who have committed crimes have appeared on television and have been recognized by third parties leading to their arrest. There have likely been other game show contestants who committed crimes. The crime itself is not related to Super Password. It's coincidental that he appeared specifically on Super Password and was later arrested. AldezD (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be your third opinion today. I reviewed this diff: [1] The contested text explicitly states that Super Password and Password Plus gained notoriety when Ketchem was arrested. While that particular assertion would need further sourcing to support, the inclusion of the event itself seems to be appropriate. Both the New York Times and LA Times sources cited treat his participation on Super Password as notable and specifically attribute his arrest to it. The LA Times also says that he was the biggest winner in the history of the show. It seems to me that that makes this incident important enough to include in the article in some way. It is my opinion that, with the exception of the unsourced claim that Ketchem's capture made the show more famous, the text offered in this diff is an asset to the article and not disproportionately large or detailed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your review and contribution! AldezD (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Debralee Scott Accidential Breasts Exposure Incident

Before I do anything I need to know if this on-air incident on Password Plus is considered notable to be included in Wikipedia. Debralee Scott best known as Cathy Shumway on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman and Rosalie "Hotsie" Totsie on Welcome Back Kotter was a celebrity contestant on Password Plus and at some point during the game her blouse came loose and her breasts were exposed several times on-the-air until she realized what had happened and quickly and embarrassingly buttoned up. If I recall correctly when this episode originally aired (I believe in '79 or '80) the NBC Standards and Practices ordered it to be blurred or the frames adjusted so that only her head to shoulder could be seen. As a point of reference when it was later syndicate to broadcast television stations including the Buzzr channel the censored version was used but when it aired on cable on GSN the uncensored version is used. The full uncensored video of the incident can be found HERE on YouTube. So can this be included as a separate paragraph? or just a link in the External links or neither? YborCityJohn (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Bloopers like this which did not receive any type of media attention or significance are trivial should not be discussed within the article. AldezD (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks I understand but would an link in the External links be ok or not? since it is not technically discussion in the article but merely a way for people to view a video of the incident. Again I ask because I want to make sure anything I do is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:YT (and specifically the copyright status of the video), please do not link this video within the article. Also, there is a lot of good info within the WP:EL guide. It may provide some additional to help you with this type of stuff in the future. Enjoy! AldezD (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Kerry Ketchum/Patrick Quinn and the removal of this section from the page

I really disagree with the removal of the section from this page. It shouldn't have been labeled "controversy" but I believe it belonged on the page as one of the more noteworthy footnotes about the show (it even got a piece on CNN for crying out loud) and the reasoning for its removal was extremely weak. ("It isn't related to the production"? Frankly almost every well-cited page on this wiki related to television would have lots of that content removed then, c'mon.) If you're gonna remove it, I could be open to a decent reason, give a better reason than that. 98.220.44.26 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And for pete's sake, just a few messages above this the person in question who removed the tidbit gets told to let it stay and agrees! Just because it's been three years doesn't somehow make it OK to remove now that no one's discussing it anymore. 98.220.44.26 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Readded the section. AldezD (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)