Talk:The New Price Is Right (1994 game show)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The New Price Is Right (1994) → The New Price Is Right — The title of this page should be The New Price Is Right since the dablink at the top of the page sufficiently covers any confusion with The Price Is Right (formerly called "The New Price Is Right"). Unfortunately, I can't revert the moves all the way back to that title so I must request the move. Axem Titanium 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose. Some articles MAY use the "New Price is Right" link instead of the standard one, and lead it to here instead of the correct one. I say we keep it back at where it was, or just omit the "New" (It was only mentioned as that by Burton at the top of the show, it still had the classic "The Price Is Right" name everywhere else). -TonicBH 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I ask what situation would call for that? Besides, that's nthing a simple edit couldn't fix if a link were pointing in the wrong direction and in any case, the disambiguation at the top would point any reader to the correct article anyway. Axem Titanium 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There will inevitably be some people who know little or nothing of one or both versions of "The New Price Is Right", and the 1972-80 run has no page, and doesn't really need one as it is part of TPiR, which many fans have come to realize as public knowledge for almost the last 30 years that it is simply The Price Is Right, and to include the word "New" in there would inevitably lead to more people discussing the Doug Davidson version rather than the term associated with the early Bob Barker <O>CBS daytime format. ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Tnpirlogo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tnpirlogo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 November 2011 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 This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Price Is Right in Los Angeles

There is a serious error in this writeup. The 1994 version of "The Price Is Right" aired on KNBC-TV in Los Angeles, not KCOP. The program earned a 4.5 rating and 7 share at 7:30 p.m. in the November 1994 sweeps [p.26] -Terehend72Terehend72 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested changes to production personnel

Hello. I am here because I noticed about a day or two ago, somebody made some changes, which were "unauthorized", for lack of a better term. These changes were in regards to personnel working on The New Price is Right. After watching some episodes, the person who amended this article to accommodate those changes was correct. Kathy Greco was a producer on the show, and both her and Phil Wayne Rossi shared credit as such. Jay Wolpert was the executive producer and not Kathy Greco. Director Andrew Felsher was later promoted to executive producer and Jay Wolpert was bumped up to senior executive producer.

You know, guys, with all due respect, it's both unfair and hypocritical of you to remove this person's edits without even taking the time to thoroughly examine and mull over the information he presented. What's hypocritical about it that you left the aforementioned personnel info on the producers incorrect and unsourced, yet this person provides some rather good sources to back up their own edits on that section, even though they were from YouTube. I know what the policy is concerning YouTube and Wikipedia but there are tons of articles on this site that do violate that policy, and it's not fair or just that you guys didn't even consider making sure all the info was correct in the first place in spite of that policy. And what's more is that the info is correct. If you want others here to have some valuable information, you must make sure it is accurate and up-to-date.

Look, I know I sound like a shill for the person who did this but whether you want to believe it or not, the information from their edits on the producers is absolutely correct. Take it for whatever you want it to mean, but the very least you could do is just please revisit those edits and actually fix up the info on the producers that's incorrect, i.e. Kathy Greco as executive producer, Jay Wolpert as producer, etc. and, if and only if it actually is correct, provide some citations to back that up. Otherwise, you're going public with an article that you know isn't totally correct.

Now in complete fairness to you guys, I will say yes, the way the person who did the edits handled this whole situation very poorly and made a complete jackass out of themselves. It was childish behavior and vandalization at its finest. But it was only because they were making these changes in the name of accuracy. And it seems as if you brushed it off as if it were nothing, which makes it come off as you saying, "No, I'm not wrong. I'm right, I'm right, I'm right. Shut up!" That attitude isn't any better than what this person was trying to do here. I hate to say it but it's relatively arrogant. And you are all being too strict in this sense.

All I'm politely requesting is that you please just consider the information that was presented to you and making necessary edits. If you don't, well, I won't say you guys are idiots for leaving a page like this missing some sources on show production staff to back up what's already written. But other people might though. And I know you wouldn't want that. I understand what you're trying to do but, again with all due respect, it feels a bit misguided. Mile16A (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, @Mile16A:, and thank you for your editorial/lecture! A bit of history:

• This article overall is poorly sourced and does not regularly use reference templates such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}} and {{Cite episode}}. Several of the references are hand-keyed in magazine names, articles and pages, without links back to the source material.
• The ip editor(s) continued to disruptively edit adding links which violate WP:YT, and could have instead used {{Cite episode}}, making sure to reference the air date of the episode and provide a non YouTube link in the parameter field (if available).
• The ip editor(s) changed the prose of the article but did not consistently change the parameters in {{Infobox television}}.
• The ip editor(s) removed templates requesting better references for several poorly referenced statements. (diff, diff)
• The ip editor(s) added unsourced and opinion content. (diff)

I edited the article and removed the individuals from the infobox, and more succinctly summarized those who worked on both the network and syndicated verison in the #Personnel section. If you wish, you can contribute to the article using details from episode credits along with the {{Cite episode}} template. Please be sure to include air date(s) and production number(s).

The actions you define as "hypocritical" are not hypocrisy, since nobody is adding links that do not conform to WP standards nor adding opinion to article space following the ip edits. Your comments about arrogance and you sounding "like a shill for the person who did this" are unrelated to actions from ip users. Nevertheless, your account was registered today after the article was semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users are able to edit it, and your only edits thus far have been to this talk page and your own user talk page.

Anywho, hope you enjoy your time here, and happy editing! AldezD (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I do think it looks better the way it's typed out now than it was before. Personally, thinking about it now, it's better for it to be summed up in a more succinct manner like what you just did, although I think a mention of Jay Wolpert as EP wouldn't be so bad to keep in. I only say that simply because he was returning to the show after previously working on the daytime version for its first six years, albeit with a different format for this version in question, and the addition of the info about his return makes it sound a little interesting. That's just my own opinion on the matter though. Do with it how you see fit. I'm not going to force you to change something you think is just fine in how it's written.

Perhaps the only other edit I'd recommend making is in the Broadcast history section, mentioning PDT. I noticed there was a "clarification needed" marker there. So if you're looking to rectify that, PDT stands for Paramount Domestic Television.

In the IP user's defense, they are more than likely novice with it comes to editing these pages. Hell, I'm novice myself. They probably didn't even know the templates you mentioned existed. I didn't know until just now either. I'm completely new here, and so is the other person, who will probably create an account and get more acquainted with it themselves.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much else to edit, at least for now. But we'll see how that goes as time marches on.

Thank you very much for your reply and taking suggestions. Mile16A (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)