Talk:The Joker's Wild

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Joker's Wild article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: Game shows Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Rewrite Needed

I agree that there needs to be a rewrite. I would like to know more about the set design, from the giant slot machine, the use of rear projection in various Barry-Enright shows, and exactly WHEN did The Joker's Wild adapt the look of Bullseye? The Joker's Wild set since became very nice, and looks more like a casino setting. In-Correct (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Version

The Joker's Wild will return in Fall 2007. The game show will be distributed by King World. Got the info from SonyPicturesTelevision.com King Shadeed 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Discussion

I propose a theory about the use of celebrities for the pilot. As I understand, CBS back in the sixties did not want game shows on their daytime schedule (save for Password). But, on NBC, Hollywood Squares began to get strong ratings (not right away, but eventually). CBS passed on HS in 1965. Could it be that Barry tailored the show to include celebrities because CBS wanted to counterprogram HS? What are your thoughts?

?????? That depends. Who are you?! In-Correct (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pair and a Joker

On a spin with a pair and a joker, if the player were to play the pair for $100, they might as well boost the value to $200 by using the Joker as well, by using the Joker as the displayed category. Playing the pair by itself for $100 makes no sense in this situation.

Actually, it does make sense if the spinning player was ahead and only needed $100 to win. For example, say the spinner has $400 and the opponent has $300. The spin is a pair and a joker. Say the spinner uses the joker and takes the category for $200. If the spinner then misses the question, the opponent can answer the question and win the game. But if the spinner opts to not use the joker and takes the category for only $100, the player can still win with a correct answer, but the opponent could only reach $400 if the spinner missed the question. For this reason, it was common for players to choose to not use their jokers if the base value for the category was enough to win. -- Seitz 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

The size of an article is now 46 KB because some sections may be large enough to have their own articles. So I am wondering if it's alright adding {{split-apart}}. What do you think? --Gh87 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one Devil?

In regards to this claim:

>>Only one devil is used on the wheels, and is rotated from one window to another after each bonus game. <<

I've watched the bonus round in slow motion on my VCR, and from what I can tell, there are actually TWO Devils on one of the wheels. It's true that only one of the three wheels contains a Devil, but it looks like there are two Devils on that wheel.

Can anyone else confirm this? Jphillst 08:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been confirmed by Wikilen who was apparently a production staff worker for Barry-Enright. In-Correct (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Joker Joker Joker.jpg

Image:Joker Joker Joker.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 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 version?!

Are you kidding me? Tell me the name of this if it even exists. 128.113.228.11 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 version again

The proposed 2007 version, mentioned in a comment from September 2006, never made it to series. Calliaume (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tjwcbs.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tjwcbs.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tjwcbs.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has been removing what I've edited or adding in the article of The Joker's Wild^{[Tjwcbs 1]}

^ Perez, Dimas. "The Joker's Wild". Editing. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Joe Dunn

Please stop linking WP:COPYVIO content in this article. Additionally, the unsourced section that has repeatedly been re-added to this article contains WP:EDITORIALization of information that is not discussed within the copyvio video linked. Use Template:Cite episode when referencing information from a television broadcast; however, please do not summarize or include unreferenced information regarding "stations affiliated with a network that insisted on the show following its rules regarding winnings limits" that is not discussed within a television episode when using Template:Cite episode to clearly state WP:V information. AldezD (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're not seeing the video, and just dismissing it because of the fact that it's a video. If you did watch it, Jack Barry said plainly and clearly that this network, whoever it was (and at the time, the show was bought by CBS and was airing on more than a few of its non-owned stations), insisted on their practices being followed as a condition of carrying the series. That's indisputable. He made it very clear that there was an entire process that was going on behind the scenes with whoever this network was (again, more likely than not CBS) and that the audience needed to know what was going on. Even if the video clip isn't admissible as evidence, the information contained needs to be included on the page because without it, there's inaccuracy in regards to a champion's reign. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the video:

There's no source to the date of "early 1983".
"Made history in several ways" is WP:EDITORIAL.
"While Barry never said on air which network came up with the policy, in 1981 CBS purchased Joker for their owned and operated stations. CBS had a policy that all syndicated game shows airing on these stations adhere to their $25,000 winnings limit, a policy that resulted in the cancellation of a deal with Viacom Enterprises to air The $128,000 Question in 1976. Nevertheless, the limit was never mentioned again." is unsourced and not discussed within the video.

AldezD (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then take away the mention of the term "early" if it bothers you. It still took place in 1983, and CBS did buy the Barry shows for its stations in 1981. They also a) had a strict winnings limit and b) were known to request it be in place for shows airing on their O&Os. Dunn's run a) was the most successful in the program's history (mentioned by Barry) and b) was the only one brought to an end by something other than defeat. You can't debate that. I'm not certain you're seeing this from the proper point of view as you're too quick to dismiss and not willing to offer a solution. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still took place in 1983^{[citation needed]} prove it.
CBS did buy the Barry shows for its stations in 1981^{[citation needed]} prove it.
They also a had a strict winnings limit^{[citation needed]} prove it.
And were known to request it be in place for shows airing on their O&Os^{[citation needed]} prove it.
Dunn's run was the most successful in the program's history^{[citation needed]} prove it.
- and was the only one brought to an end by something other than defeat^{[citation needed]} prove it.

AldezD (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there WAS proof, if you could've watched the video you were so quick to dismiss. I'm starting to notice an alarming lack of good faith on your part and am considering acting as such. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did watch the video. There is no source either in discussion or a copyright watermark showing it took place in "early 1983". There are no references to the other bullets I've listed as well. You've provided no source for Dunn's being the most successful run and that the winnings limit was "never mentioned again". WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH does not trump WP:V, and sources for this information have been requested multiple times. AldezD (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So did you see where Jack Barry mentioned that Dunn had won more money in regular play than anyone else in the history of the show to that point? Because he did in fact say that. That makes it the most successful, and the dispute over the wording is a matter of semantics. The title of the video mentions the year as well, so that knocks off two bullets. The show was airing on WCBS in New York, which was an O&O of CBS, and Barry mentioned that the certain network made requests as conditions, so how could it not be CBS making that request? If you read most of the pages on the Wiki about CBS game shows airing during this time, they all had a limit in winnings of $25,000. I would refer you to the pages Double Dare (1976 game show), The Match Game, and Michael Larson for corroboration of that. So even if you disregard the possibility that CBS made a request, the network winnings limit amount was strict compared to what it later became($50k and then $75k). So that's three. There also wasn't any other champion in the three and a half years the show had left to run that was retired because of this rule, so I would call it safe to believe that it wasn't mentioned again. I don't understand why this has to be such a contentious issue with you. The event obviously happened if there's documentation, the host/producer of the show wouldn't have called the run the most successful in regular play if it wasn't, nobody else won as much outside of tournaments, and CBS had a strict limit on winnings. I don't understand what else could convince you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post above:

"That makes it the most successful,"—That makes it the most successful through that period, but the show was on the air for another three years after that episode. There's no proof that Dunn's record was not eclipsed later.
The title of the video was added by the content uploader, which again does not mean this is accurate or verifiable.
"If you read most of the pages on the Wiki about CBS game shows airing during this time, they all had a limit in winnings of $25,000."—Is this content sourced elsewhere? The mentions of a $25,000 winnings limit in Double Dare, Match Game, and Michael Larson are all unsourced.
"...the network winnings limit amount was strict compared to what it later became($50k and then $75k)"—again, no source for this has been provided.
"There also wasn't any other champion in the three and a half years the show had left to run that was retired because of this rule"—prove it.

AldezD (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the show itself ought to be considered a reliable source of information about what happened on the show. To me, that is obvious, just as a book is a reliable reference for what the book says – even if we do not have an online link to a copy of the book. I think it is also clear that Mr. Dunn was not allowed to continue competing and was required to give some of his winnings to charity after his winnings reached $66,200. If there is a potential copyright problem with providing a link to a clip from the show, I don't think that the link to a video excerpt from the show is necessary to establish the facts of what happened on the show. The mere fact that it happened on the show is sufficient to establish the fact that something happened on the show. The unqualified statement in the article saying that winners were allowed to continue until they were defeated is clearly untrue and needs to be corrected. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I think would clinch the whole thing is if I could find an episode guide. That way we could pinpoint the exact date. But it is clearly obvious that even though the video excerpt is a COPYVIO problem, it is a record of the event and even if right now I can't pin down the exact date of when it aired, the three of us have seen this bit of information and since BarrelProof has seen what I've seen, I believe unless you, AldezD, can find someone else to agree with your position, the consensus is that the information needs to be put into the article and left there because without it, what's left is patently false. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been 1983 (see [1], [2], [3]), although I'm not sure the date really matters. Regarding video link copyright issues, see WP:VIDEOLINK. However, as I said previously, I don't think we necessarily need a link to the episode to support a statement about what happened on the show. See WP:OFFLINE. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also apparently a winner named Frank Dillon ... [4] —BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to question the statements "Dunn's run was the most successful in the program's history", "and was the only one brought to an end by something other than defeat", "that makes it the most successful", "There also wasn't any other champion in the three and a half years the show had left to run that was retired because of this rule". AldezD (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate situation, though- Frank Dillon's retirement came on the CBS series, not the syndicated series. But the limit was $25k, so... --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And further, I found an episode guide for Press Your Luck that shows said limit was still $25k well into 1984, and by November it was increased. [5] Irrefutable proof. And even though the date of the Joe Dunn ep isn't really a big deal, all the info I found seems to point to March 1983 as the time frame... thus making kt "early 1983," as I previously stated. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a fansite and not "irrefutable proof." It also does not state the limit on Press Your Luck was $25,000 "well into 1984". The site makes no reference to any winnings limit—only that certain contestants retired at various points with different total winnings. AldezD (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the page, AldezD. You're once again cherrypicking the information to suit you. If they retired, it was obviously due to a winnings limit, and that limit was $25,000 for the first ten months of 1984. AND the raising of the limit was mentioned on the show and catalogued in the episode guide on November 1, 1984. You have your irrefutable data, you have consensus working against you, it's time to drop this. -- ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to agree with AldezD that fansites really shouldn't be considered reliable sources or irrefutable proof, and that we should be conservative about drawing conclusions that go beyond the clear facts. I think we can agree that some facts have been established – e.g., that there was a limit, and that Dunn was not allowed to win more than $50k and was essentially forced to give $16,200 to charity. And I think it's also now obvious that Dillon was also an exceptionally successful contestant (and probably also that Dillon was forced to "retire" for roughly similar reasons after hitting a lower cap of $25k at a substantially earlier point in time – perhaps the reason Dillon wasn't mentioned by Barry on the show where Dunn was "retired" is that it was part of a different series in terms of business structure). I did some looking for better sources, but so far I haven't found them (although, as I said, I believe the show itself has adequate value for establishing some basic facts). Surely there were some newspaper articles on the subject, but I have not (yet) been able to find them. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you on calling a fansite problematic but when somebody goes to the length this person did to catalogue the episodes there's got to be some attention paid to it. Nonetheless, as far as Frank Dillon was concerned, I think if any mention of him needs to happen it is in the section where the show tournaments of champions are (just elaborate a bit; I don't think there is any mention of his network run there). As far as local news articles go, those might be tough to find. Google's proving no help. But as far as the key facts (his win, his total, the record it set, and his end), I think those have been established and unless AldezD can find someone to dispute that, the information should be returned to the article as soon as possible.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headway! Found an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette regarding the limit and CBS' S&P being involved in the show, circa November 1983. [6] --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Press Your Luck site is WP:QS. How can you prove there is no transposition error in winnings, that there are no errors in total winnings, final scores, etc.? Again, it is not appropriate to draw your own conclusions as to a winnings limit from an entirely different program and how that can relate to this program.

Efforts should be focused on dating the episode on which Dunn (and now Dillon) retired, and using that information along with Template:Cite episode. Yes, this obviously happened, but outside of the link above sourcing that a $50,000 cap existed as of 8 November 1983, sources for when winnings limits changed, if they were ever mentioned again, if his championship was the "most successful", when CBS bought stations, etc. have not been provided, and information surrounding those statements should not be included in mentioning Dunn or Dillon unless a source can be provided. AldezD (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Barry stated it in the beginning of the episode and we've already established it as a legit source. Dillon's retirement isn't relevant to this particular discussion because it happened when TJW was a network show and subject to CBS' rules and regulations, which included that $25k limit. Since you haven't provided a secondary dissenting source and there's two-to-one for including the info, I'm readding the info to the page. If we can at some point pinpoint the exact date of the Dunn retirement, we're golden. But until then, I'll leave the year on the note because it did happen in 1983. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisP2K5:, it appears that you removed the information about Frank Dillon being "retired" for hitting a winnings cap, which I believe has caused a factual problem in the article's description of how the show worked in the Gameplay section. The article now says "Champions usually played until defeated, but for a brief period in the 1980s there was a specified winnings threshold..." and then talks about the Dunn episode. But my understanding is that Dillon also hit a threshold and was retired for it, so that wasn't just something that happened in the 1980s. It was a lower cap, but it was still a cap. I don't see why it matters whether this happened in the syndicated series or the previous one – this article is also about the prior series in which Dillon participated. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to the section because the section mentioning Joe Dunn is about the syndicated series. There is a separate section for the CBS series, and if there must be a mention of Dillon's retirement it shouldn't be in the syndicated series section. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, that section is about gameplay, not Dunn. Dunn's name isn't anywhere in the headings of that section, he is discussed in that section only because he is one of the exceptional cases in which the gameplay did not end in defeat by an opponent. Isn't that section supposed to describe all incarnations of the show? As I understand it, there was effectively a cap during the network show and a cap during the syndicated show, so the concept of a cap is something that was a common element of the show that applied in both cases. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe I see what you're saying. The Gameplay section is hatnoted with a statement saying it describes "the format used from 1977 to 1986". I guess Dillon's "retirement" was pre-1977? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He was a contestant on the original series, from what I've been able to find out. So he would've been subject to the network rules, as would've everyone else who competed on that show. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you just added something about Dillon in a relevant section. I guess that looks adequate to me. Thanks! —BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a source with additions such as the one about Frank Dillon. AldezD (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over rules

There is presently a question in debate over the rules of the game, specifically whether a contestant was allowed to "split" a natural pair or triple (that is, play a triple as if it were a single or double or a pair as if it was a single). There are valid strategic cases for doing so. The dispute centers over whether the rules permitted splitting. Dkendr (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no evidence for this edit in which you make the claim. Contestants cannot split natural pairs nor natural triples. Contestants can choose not to use a joker, but if two or three of the same category appears, natural matches cannot be split. AldezD (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KTLA run, did it even happen?

Where did Wikipedia get the claim that there was a KTLA run of the show from 1971? I couldn't find it anywhere. Not even by doing a search in newspapers.com

https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=Jack+Barry&dr_year=1971-1971&lnd=1&t=4312--2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Perez, Dimas. "The Joker's Wild". Editing. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

[Tjwcbs 1]