Jump to content

Talk:The Price Is Right/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

GA Review

Overall, this is a pretty good article. There are a few specific things that are needed in order to improve it further to GA level (and beyond), but I think you are pretty close to GA. First, the quick version. Then, I'll give some suggestions as to how I think the article can be improved.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

The following are some suggestions I had as I read through the article:

General

  • There are references to TPIR, TPiR, and Price as alternate titles. Firstly, consistency is necessary between the first two: if you are going to use any acronyms, pick one and stick with it. Furthermore, any alternate titles that are used in the article should be mentioned and bolded in the lead as an alternate title (see WP:LS#Bold title for an example).
 DoneTPIR is not an alternate title, just shorthand. All instances spelled out, except Price in other media section header. Should be acceptable since it is a headline.
  • There are a number of spelling mistakes that I found in the text: orginal → original; cancelation → cancellation; embarassment → embarrassment.
 Done Got'em—Twigboy 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

  • "although Barker announced on 31 October 2006, that he would retire at the end of this" remove the comma
 Done
  • "began on December 8" of what year?
 Done
  • "The current format is based on the orginal 1956–65 US version of the show, which aired on NBC and later ABC from 1956 to 1965 and was hosted by Bill Cullen." no need to mention the years twice in the same sentence. Also, check spelling.
 Done
  • Merge the second and fourth paragraphs and place after the third paragraph.
 Done Fixed lede issues —Twigboy 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By article section

Pricing games
  • "Six pricing games are played per episode, and a variety of games are played, some more elaborate than others" is a bit awkwardly phrased.
 Done Rephrased.—Twigboy 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Other production staff
  • Incorporate text in parentheses ("Dobkowitz occasionally appears...") into the previous sentence.
 Done—Twigboy 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Syndicated productions
  • "It was only when James' contract expired and the long-running Truth or Consequences ended production that Barker added the evening version to his chores." Perhaps duties is a better choice?
 Done Agreed. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
CBS primetime specials
  • "The situation with potential audience members before the Vegas show started with confusion, then quickly degraded almost to chaos; as such, another road trip is unlikely." It is unclear to me what the "situation with potential audience members" being referred to is.
 DoneThis very likely did happen, but I can't find anything solid on it. Doesn't really speak to anything about the specials themselves, and it doesn't completely answer why no other on-the-road specials have been done. (Perhaps there are other factors?) To OR-ish for me, so I spiked it.—Twigboy 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Productions statistics
  • I think it might be better laid out the opposite way that it is now, in the form "text: number" rather than "number. text". This isn't critical though.
 Question: I did it more as a personal style thing. Slightly nonconventional, but I thought it added a different flavor to the article. Comments? —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Episode Status
  • This section seems to have been inserted erroneously in the middle of the Price in other media section, thereby displacing the Live casino game section. If it is not vandalism, it should be likely moved into Production information.
  • According to WP:MSH#Capitalization, the section should be titled Episode status.
  • A space is needed between the 1st and 2nd sentences.
  • "(as does the syndicated nighttime Price is Right)" -- should this not be The Price is Right?

 Done This section crept in after nomination. I'm not sure what it adds to one's understanding of the program.—Twigboy 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

References

  • Reference #3: Remove "(US game show)" from the text. Also, the link does not point to the correct IMDB page.
 Done Revised footnote for an "umbrella" footnote for releated sections at IMDB.—Twigboy 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference #7 is a broken link
 DoneAck! I hate to see this one go, but there is no solid link in place, and it's not in the Wayback Machine. We'll see you another day, perhaps. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • References #10-13: convert to use {{cite episode}} template?
 Question: These do use the {{cite episode}} template. Since there are no episode titles, it has to deviate slightly from the proscribed format. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice that. I think what was throwing me off was the redlinks, and I'm not sure why they're even red -- the airdate parameter should be in YYYY-MM-DD (2007-04-19) or DD Month YYYY (19 April 2007) format, as it is being automatically wikilinked by the template. Is it possible to add in an episode/season number, or is that type of data not available on a per episode level. Also, are there any other parameters of cite episode that can be used? —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Episode numbers and production numbers are not generally known; not to say some show geek (no offense, please) wouldn't be able to dig it up. I'm not sure what the production number would add to the casual reader's understanding of the reference. (Contrasted to DVDs of every imaginable 6+ episode show, where the episode data is available.)—Twigboy 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; it just would be helpful to have some sort of reference point, but if meaningful information is not available, then I guess what is done now will have to make-do. It might be worthwhile at some point (I mean, it's not a GA-failing point) to investigate how other game show articles handle this, if they do. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference #16: likely a copyright violation
 Done Removed statement until more solid reference material shows up.—Twigboy 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a number of sections that contain no inline references at all: Taping; Production company; the whole Broadcast history section is completely unsourced; most of Price in other media is unsourced as well.
 Done—Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For the Bloopers... item about exploiting game play, it would be better to add a reference for each event. If anything, move the parenthesized note "(which are explained in each pricing game's article)" into a <ref>, but it would be preferable to have references for each of these on this article, especially since I found it hard to find details on the games' articles, plus, those articles are not necessarily referenced, either (or use Youtube videos, which are copyright violations).
 DoneBest possible reference, outside of Youtube links, is an episode reference itself. Perhaps these references can be shored up, but I was coming up blank. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Some citations possibly unreliable (specifically the golden-road.net cites, which appears to be a fansite?); however, for the purposes of GA they are acceptable.
 Question: If not a GA issue, I would like to hold and start a discussion after GA Review on the veracity of reference sites. Definitely a point that I have wrestled with and changed my mind on over time. —Twigboy 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up. Each of the three "fan" sites that have been included for references have some sort of "backstage" knowledge of the program. For example, Golden-Road.net conducts a few chat sessions with the producer, which legitimizes the site's content. I have been pretty judicious about the references from fan groups — these seem to be very reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twigboy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Follow-up to the follow-up. A discussion about the quality of sources is below.—Twigboy 02:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall

  • Could use some copyediting
 Done Read top to bottom. Pretty much each section drops the cow before it gets too long-winded. Lot of extraneous cruft is now gone.—Twigboy 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix up the references and add some more
 DoneAlways could use more, but I shored up a few weak areas.—Twigboy 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As such, I have put the GA nomination on hold for one week, pending repairing the above, which I think is doable. Once the fixes have been made, I'd be glad to approve the article for GA. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I have reviewed your changes, and have decided to promote this article to GA status. With this in mind, I still think that there are improvements that should be made to this article. It was still in need of a copyedit, but I have taken care of this for you (see diff). More importantly, however, is the fact that there are still a lot of references that should be added to this article; this is enough of a concern that it almost caused me to fail the article. I have added one new reference for you. What you need to do is read through the entire article, and for any item that is not common knowledge, find and add a reference.

That being said, congratulations for taking this article to GA status! —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review and performing some much-needed last steps. (Sometimes is gets a bit difficult to think of ways to clean up the copy when you've looked at it so long!) References are, indeed lacking, and hopefully we can shift the focus to cleaning that up. I appreciate your time and consideration!—Twigboy 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of this statement

"Since the January 1994 cancellation of Caesars Challenge, The Price Is Right has been the only daytime game show airing on any U.S. broadcast television network. "

I'm still concerned about the complete accuracy of this statement. I've modified it to include "broadcast" because of examples like Win Ben Stein's Money which as it won Daytime Emmys for several years in a row, indicates that well, it's considered a daytime show. Since it was on Comedy Central that means it's a cable network show, not a broadcast one, so I suppose the qualifier of broadcast television is enough, but I still think it'd be worth noting the various syndicated programming available in game shows, just to make sure that this statement is fully accurate. Are there any suggestions for how to say that? FrozenPurpleCube 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struggled with that statement myself. Showing my age, my brain defaulted to "broadcast network" when I saw "network"; the change you made is indeed required for accuracy. The point being made by the statement was that networks (broadcast, because in this context we are going back before the proliferation of cable) ceased producing game shows for daytime entirely, despite being strong programming and production choices in the previous decades. There are several reasons (all of which are OR, so not article-worthy) such as demographic shifts, production costs, etc.
That being said, it is an unsourced statement, which lost a {{cn}} somewhere along the line. (I think it was excised for lack of source and then reappeared.) While devoted television watchers can say, indeed, this is true, there is not (yet) a source that shows it. Primetime broadcast schedules have articles, but daytime schedules are hard to come by.—Twigboy 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's been a bit hard to find sources for the statement, the best I've come up with have been Usenet posts. Some of them even mention the reasons for the cancellation, and while they're probably true, they're not quite reliable. Maybe there will be something in a TPIR retrospective article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement about TPiR being the only game show on broadcast network daytime since 1994 is a simple statement of fact. If you want to do a historical fact check of daytime TV schedules, you can check the archives of a newspaper that carries them (which is almost any daily paper, at least on Sundays). The New York Times would have the schedules for the NYC stations, which generally clear the entire network schedule (no local pre-emptions). You could also check the tables in the most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (Schwartz, Ryan and Wostbrock; Checkmark Books, 1999). But I don't think (IMO) that in order to make the above statement, it's necessary to verify and document that no other game show has been aired by a broadcast network in the last 13-1/2 years. It's something that's easily observable.JTRH 12:45, 29 May 2007(UTC)
To clarify the above paragraph, the Sunday edition of a daily paper usually contains a TV magazine which gives the complete schedules for every day of the week. The way I phrased it above didn't entirely make sense. In any case, the statement about network schedules can be easily fact-checked.JTRH 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality of citations

While I am not claiming ownership, I wanted to express a few finer points on the references cited in this article. I feel that this will help assist in the addition of new sources, based on the prevailing opinion of reliability.

  • What constitutes the "official page" at CBS: Most of the information presented is true, although some is dated. Fans have noted that some of the more trivial points are not too accurate, for reasons unknown.
  • The pages for The Price Is Right at IMDb have been cited heavily, as they are the more detailed source for the television industry.
  • The Golden-Road.net is a fansite that has been included here because of its chats with the producer, Roger Dobkowitz [1] [2] [3]. The principal contributors have had extraordinary and exclusive backstage access, particularly during the final episodes of Bob Barker's tenure. This is, in this editor's opinion, a de facto recognition of the site.
  • TPIR.tv has also been cited several times for its ability to present clear, concise ad-free references. The site's author is a former contestant.
  • Game Show Utopia has a concise writeup (compared to other sources) of the Tom Kennedy-hosted version of the show.
  • J-shea.com is cited because of several program "artifacts" (such as staging sheets and announcer copy) and otherwise well-sourced information.
  • Episode citations, when known are by episode airdate, as there are no episode names and production numbers (or some sort of season serial numbering system) is generally known. (Production numbers do exist, but they are not cited as this does not give the reader any meaningful information.)
  • References for the Price in other media section are the best or only available sources.

  • User Chris319 is a former employee of the show's production company (Goodson-Todman Productions) and has corrected various inaccuracies and filled in details based on firsthand knowledge and observation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris319 (talk • contribs) 04:37
Not for the appreciation of the perspective you offer, but it is Wikipedia policy to avoid first-hand accounts (WP:OR). References to reliable sources that are themselves first-hand accounts are acceptable. Do edit to correct inaccuracies, but please have a source to back up your assertions, even though you know for absolute certain that you are right. Thanks, and I look forward to your insightful contributions.—Twigboy 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy then, if (TPIR producer) Roger Dobkowitz himself entered information on this page, it would be considered less valid than secondhand information obtained from a fan which had been published on golden-road.net. With regard to tpir.tv cited above, Wikipedia editorial policy favors the authority of a former contestant over the authority of a former employee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris319 (talk • contribs) 17:40
That is correct, as you state it, but there's more to it than that. Let's take that same example from a different angle: Assume Mr. Dobkowitz is interviewed in TV Guide or on MSNBC. The interview is a reliable source, because the information was presented first in another forum. The information gleened from the interview would be entirely welcomed here. Wikipedia (or any encylopedia, for that matter) is not the type of forum for citing oneself; any editor who questions the verifiability of a particular statement could not, because there are no sources to check. Now, let's go one step further. This article contains a section about criticism and controversy of the program, as any balanced article should. It does not cast a flattering light on the program or its staff. If the producer is also a Wikipedian, he might be inclined to make changes that are conflicts of interest. It may seem harmless, but, you wouldn't want the White House staff editing the article on George W. Bush. These may seem hard lines to be drawn, but they are some of the more rigid areas of Wikipedia policy, as they have been debated for some time now.
Regarding the use of TPIR.tv as a more favorable source: The citations revolve around the site's collection of media that the author has claimed fair use for. As the site has been around for quite a while, the claim of fair use has not been challenged by the copyright owners. It has given the editors the ability to change an assertion of "I saw it on the show. I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE!!!@!1!!" to "Here is a source that you can verify." It is not a source that has been given greater weight than published accounts from the production staff.
Sorry to be long-winded. I hope this answers your concerns. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave them on my my talk page. Thanks! (Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts!) —Twigboy 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There will be no further posts from me. Chris319 11:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditional press are cited when possible, but it is typically limited to general overview material. It is my opinion that the sources are the best available and provide the reader with a concise understanding of the program. Thoughts? —Twigboy 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) • updated 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "official page" is produced and maintained by the network staff, or their contractor; that's what makes it official. However, as you've noted, it's riddled with information which is outdated or simply wrong. I once e-mailed that page a question about the show's history, and they gave me an answer which I knew to be inaccurate. (I still didn't know the answer to what I wanted, but I knew that it wasn't what they were telling me.) I guess editorial judgment is called for in the use of the "official" site.JTRH 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Barker retires as host

Bob Barker has retired as host of The Price Is Right on June 6, 2007. [4]. DragonFire1024 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission ... unfortunately, this source doesn't have anything more than what is already here. Most of the articles leading up to his retirement have rehashed a lot of the same points. I'm happy to get your submission, but it was more appropriately summarized in the lede and expanded in the section Bob Barker, emcee. Since this was already sourced, there wasn't much more to add. However, I updated the Wikinews link in that section, which does refer to the source article that you named. Thanks again, DragonFire1024. —Twigboy 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

pricing game trivia

it says in most of the pricing game page histories that the trivia has been chopped off and put in a separate section, but just WHERE IS IT? 24.206.74.247 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are disappearing from Wikipedia in general with relevant information being incorporated into the article prose. This is per WP:TRIVIA which is a part of the Manual of Style. So you will find, as an example, that the Range Game, has the running gag about the machine taking 37 hours to restart moved into the article prose (since it happens on just about every playing, editors found that notable). But the fact that the game was played for a range (stove) once was deemed non-notable. Trivia such as that is suitable for fansites, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For further information on how to handle trivia sections, refer to WP:HTRIV. Thanks!—Twigboy 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

but you said that you put it in a SEPARATE SECTION. 24.206.74.247 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not me, but TheHYPO placed this in his edit summary: (Wikipedia policy is to avoid trivia sections. I have incorporated signficant trivia into an article format). I didn't check all 102 pricing games, but everything stayed within the article or was deleted entirely. If you have a more specific example, I can give you a better answer, perhaps.—Twigboy 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Protection request

With all the vandalism that's been appearing on this page in the last few days, is it possible that this page could possibly be protected from the vandals for a while? Thanks. Leandar 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Verb tenses

Bob Barker's episodes are still airing in reruns. Drew Carey hasn't started work yet. I think it's premature to change every Barker reference to the past tense. Thanks. JTRH 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit conflicted over that. Obviously the article is taking on more Drew Carey material, mostly future tense. In some instances in the text — since the torch has officially been passed — it is appropriate to shift the tense to Barker was and Carey is, even though there isn't an episode (or even a rehearsal) in the can yet.—Twigboy 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Carey continuing the spay-and-neuter announcement

Barker's end of the phone call where Carey said he will continue the spay-and-neuter announcement was actually on Entertainment Tonight. There's a clip of it on their site, but I'm not reverting Twigboy's removal of the statement; yes, it's sourced, but I don't think it's noteworthy. JTRH 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to see that it's sourced. It may be a good idea to include that until he actually hosts a show, just to make sure the message stays and not a hollow promise. But, I'm not offended with including it with a citation.—Twigboy 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for continued removal of "New Orleans" trip information

Twig, I'm trying to understand why you are doing this, and I have yet to get a reason from you. I feel putting it back in helps people to understand the whole situation better. The deal about the repeat in 2005 that had a trip from NO that originally aired in 2004 doesn't make sense without this information. I have no idea why you keep reverting it, you seem to be a rather unstable indivdual on this issue. Hdayejr 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are searching for reasons, and I have pulled these from the edit summaries in the article history:
  • 21:23, July 27, 2007 TPIRFanSteve (The New Orleans information was already removed once for not being particularly noteworthy in the long run...and on top of that, there's no way both of those tapedates are right.)
  • 11:57, August 2, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 147575337 by TPIRFanSteve (talk))
  • 12:28, August 2, 2007 Twigboy (rv per discussion at Talk:The Price Is Right (US game show)/Archive4 -- if you strongly feel otherwise, please bring it up at the current talk page)
  • 12:52, August 2, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 148745723 by Twigboy (talk))
  • 14:17, August 2, 2007 Twigboy (rv per valid reference to prior discussion. Hdayejr reverted with the auto-generated edit summary. pls discuss on talk if strongly opposed)
  • 11:56, August 4, 2007 Hdayejr (Undid revision 148766058 by Twigboy (talk)WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?)
  • 13:29, August 4, 2007 Twigboy (i discussed the merits of this rv already. with the exception of "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM" you have not. Invitation to discuss on talk still open)
I will also refer back to this very discussion in the talk archives from June 2006 for this article. Of particular note, one editor stated about the point: Not to 'trivialize', but this will be a footnote in two weeks. There was consensus then to keep this to its basic information; it is the core of the "controversy," making any other information of delayed airings really irrelevant. The delayed airings weren't themselves controversial, but a mere rescheduling of taped episodes out of sensitivity to New Orleanians. The episodes that did air just after Katrina were mildly controversial, marginally worthy of mention here, but programs that are pulled from West Coast airings because of content typically have some element of controversy to them. I hope you now understand the rationale behind this approach.
As for your incivility here and elsewhere towards me, I have left that to your talk page—Twigboy 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nighttime Price Is Right

Copied from Talk:The Nighttime Price Is Right to preserve in case of deletion.

Sorry to appear deletionist, but is there anything that separates this version from the daytime version other than its host? There is a brief summary at The Price Is Right (US game show) which seems suffice for this subject. The other primetime/syndicated entrants that arguably give reason to be split off the main article:

Point being, if these episodes had aired in the daytime (other than the host change) would anyone know the difference? I just don't think there's enough to merit a new article. Just my 2¢.—Twigboy 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag you placed on the article. This is not a well-named article, among other issues, but it should be improved (or merged with the main The Price Is Right article), not deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I considered {{merge}} first, but all (or nearly all) the material comes right from the main The Price Is Right article). Reconsider?—Twigboy 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not, so as you suggest, I will tag as {{merge}}. I don't, however, see anything new in this article that is sourced, so anything that is merged over would compromise the GA status of the main article. Keep in mind, this program is still just The Price Is Right — the only differences are that it happened to air in the evening, was distributed through syndication, and it had a different host. The title was the same and the format was the same. All of this points to the need for a summary section in the main article, but not a new article.—Twigboy 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. JTRH 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No merge. Just delete. The entire premise of the article is incorrect -- it lists the 1972-1980 and 1985-1986 runs as a single series. -TPIRFanSteve 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Per the above, I'm converting the {{merge}} tag back to {{prod}}. There has been little activity since its inception other than maintenance and unsubstantiated reverting of corrections. —Twigboy 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD

I reverted the following edit from the "'Price' in other media" section:

On September 3, 2007 BCI annouced that a The Price is Right DVD is in the works and is set to released in Spring 2008. Read it here at: [5]

I have a concern with the reliability of the source, seeing as the web page with BCI Eclipse press releases does not include this. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources (WP:RS), particularly in this case where the chain of verifiability stops with "conversations" the blogger had with the company. This is not to say it isn't true — it just would need more substantiation. That, and the section needs to be written in more of an encyclopedic tone.—Twigboy 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Amazon has it as a pre-order item right now scheduled to be released in late March 2008. That isn't a reliable source? 71.72.172.220 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Perfect Shows

While watching the first Drew Carey episode (which was a perfect show), during the second Showcase Showdown, Carey mentions that this episode was the 77th perfect show, with 76 prior to it. Before I edited it to reflect this, it stated '75' prior to this episode. Any information on this? - Enzo Aquarius 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode count

I'm just wondering if it's really necessary for people to update the episode count every single day that a new show airs. JTRH 01:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very important to have an episode count accurate as of 11:01 a.m. Eastern Time EVERY DAY!! Sorry, I seem to have left my sarcasm machine on :) —Twigboy 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I refactored the episode-count parameter to have a month/year endpoint, rather than daily, with a plea to observe this for sanity in a hidden note. This saves 20+ revisions per month and less vandal patrol needed on my part.—Twigboy 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind updating the episode-count once a month so that this page does't have 20+ revisions per month which will avoid vandalism. What concerns me is, who is going to keep a count how many episodes there are? You cannot just assume that because this month has twenty-one weekday dates that one episode will air on each of theose weekday dates equaling twenty-one episodes. Last month, two of the weekday dates (the day of Thanksgiving and the day after Thanksgiving), an episode didn't air. I'm just worried that the count will not be exact. If I had to choose, I would choose to keep it daily.
Does anyone know how many episodes of this show has aired this month (December 2007) only?—Gibsonj338 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
One problem with this: who is going to keep a count how many episodes there are? This supposes that Wikipedia becomes the primary source for the episode count, which is a no-no. (If I am at work, how do I know that an original episode aired today? How does any editor know that an episode is not a re-run?) I would guess that the Golden-Road.net would be the most likely to have an updated count — especially since there is primary sourcing from the production staff there. Also, does the reader gain any new understanding knowing that the program has aired 6,767 shows as opposed to 6,765 through November or even "more than 6,700 shows"? Contrast this to the Today show which the infobox proclaims, "20,652 (as of October 26, 2007)," with my emphasis.—Twigboy (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Valid point. Actually, the show page at CBS.com has a running list of air dates of new and repeated episodes, so whether or not the day's show is new can be verified without watching it unless something happens at the last minute (e.g., a Presidential news conference pre-empts the show in the Eastern time zone and the West gets a re-run substituted as a result). Golden-road.net is a reliable source, and TPIRFanSteve is a major contributor both there and here. But updating the number daily really doesn't add much to the article. For example, this morning, I revised the Wheel of Fortune page to say "approx. 4600" episodes have aired. I think that's accurate enough. (And I'm not going back tomorrow to change it to "approx. 4601"). JTRH (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And not to make this arbitrary, as this serves another purpose: If there is an edit attributed to an anonymous editor with a zero-byte change (greyed-out zero in the watchlist), you can't tell without going into the article if it is an episode count update ... ɯsılɒpuɒʌ s,ʇı ʄı ɹo—Twigboy (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Or here's another thought: the Barker section of the article could list the number of episodes he hosted, which won't need to be changed, and the data could be removed from the infobox altogether until Carey reaches a milestone - his 100th should air around March or April 2008. JTRH (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some deadlinks (and some live ones) are being pruned from the references and replaced with {{fact}}. I have replaced them, but please list dead links on the Talk page if you cannot find a substitute or (as in most cases) a new URL. Thanks for your help.—Twigboy 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Memorable moments - Halloween Special

This morning, I added a blurb about the first ever PiR Halloween special under Memorable Moments & Bloopers. I figured it was justified an entry because the April Fools showcases were mentioned in the same section, but perhaps somebody could better word it than myself - like adding that Drew was dresssed as a vampire, for example. --Mr. Brown 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good rationalization, with a citation, no less! While I'm not a fan of instantly declaring memorable events, it fits in the spirit of the April Fool's showcases as you state. I think there are some images/videos on the Freemantle Price is Right page, which might add further citable material.—Twigboy 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Good article reassessment

(See top of page.)

AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I followed the instructions on the GAR page, which implied a signature would be added automatically. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Result: The GAR has closed as delist with the following closing comment: Article has been listed at GAR for over a month. Actionable and obvious concerns have been presented, but have not been addressed within requested waiting period or the ca. 3 weeks thereafter. Two editors (nominator and a commenter) have expressed explicit preference for delisting and two others recognize the existence of concerns. No support for retaining GA status has been presented. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging sections

It has been suggested that One Bid, The Showcase (The Price Is Right), and Showcase Showdown (The Price is Right) be merged into this article. I don't believe this would be the best course of action - it would result in something similar to what this article was originally like with all versions of the show in one article. At that time, it was complained that the article was very lengthy. Merging these three articles into the main article would only increase the length of the main article dramatically. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article also needs massive cutting down. If it were cleaned up, there would be no more problems with length and merging in the three articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of it has to be cut out (I mean, come on, there are references to freakin' production numbers in here now), as a lot of it is fanfluff and is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The spinoff articles are definitely weak, but merging them back in here just would add too much bulk. I would ask to hold off on a merge, as the article has also been tagged with {{articleissues}} and came up for Good Article Reassessment in the same week. It's too much to address at once.—Twigboy (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll second Twigboy on that. Structurally, the article seems to be OK. What needs to happen is trimming down the explanations. Then we can talk about whether it is appropriate to merge the One Bid and Showcase Showdown articles. My first thought, however, would be to not do this, at least with the Showcase Showdown, because of their unique play and production elements. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)]]
I've cut down a lot of the trivia and historical information that's no longer relevant to the current show. I took out the mention of everyone who auditioned for the announcer position after Olson's and Roddy's deaths. I also took out the repetitive mention of the syndicated show hosts, and the detailed explanation of the Gameshow Marathon episode (since it wasn't actually an episode of this show). And I trimmed a lot of the detail on gameplay. There's still a lot that can be done here - a few weeks ago, I whacked Wheel of Fortune down to less than half its previous size (including cutting out a lot of my own previous contributions), and no one seems to think that anything truly important was taken out. JTRH (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've taken the Oreo approach: I cleaned up sections in the beginning and the end and left the creamy middle. Thanks for the help. More to go, but this is shaping up nicely.—Twigboy (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1313mocking bird lane says WHY DO YOU CARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.203.147 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is getting obnoxious again...

Just an observation. Seems some people are adding the entire production history to the infobox, and its getting obnoxiously large again. So, I'll ask the eternal question once again - what needs to stay and what needs to go? --Mr. Brown (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest taking out the names of former production staff like Breslow and Alter (they should still be mentioned in the main article prose, of course). Leave only the names of staff that are currently on the show. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chick in the 80's who refused to accept the foreign car!!!...

There was a woman who refused to accept an import car in the 80's and I saw that referenced recently in some random magazine article can someone track down information on that and a clip of the video that'd be awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.109.220 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Price is Wrong

Someone needs to add this to the Memorable moments section http://youtube.com/watch?v=fheBZBuXKJc SancLunatic (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Videos from youtube are not a reliable.— DædαlusT@lk / ImproveContribs 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying add the Youtube video! SancLunatic (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Define "starring"

This is in response to an edit I made yesterday to the infobox. I changed the infobox to reflect not just the host but the announcer and a mention of the models as well (so that it read: Drew Carey, Rich Fields, and a rotating cast of models). I also created a "former stars" section that listed the former hosts (including syndicated) and announcers, which may have been a bit much, but as it has been agreed not to create a separate article for the first two syndicated series, it probably fits there best. However, somebody reverted the article to its previous form, which mentions only the current host and Bob Barker.

I am placing this up for discussion because it is not my belief that the host is the only star of the show, just as there is not usually only one star to a sitcom or drama, there is also a supporting cast. Rich Fields and the models are Carey's on-air supporting cast, and in my opinion, they should at bare minimum be mentioned in the infobox. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your description sums it up best: the other cast members are supporting performers and by definition not "stars" of the show. While they may have a large fan base or internet following, the host is the star of the show, and therefore is the only one that should be billed as the "star."
Multiple television shows, both drama and comedy, have storylines which most often center on one specific character billed as the star. the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ugly Betty, Murphy Brown, etc. all had/have ensemble casts but the star of the show is the main character.
To that extent, I agree that the original format of the info box prior to your edit should be the version used.Sottolacqua (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I'm just trying to make this consistent with other shows of its type. Most game shows center around the host and the host alone (Millionaire, Family Feud, Jeopardy!, etc.) The Price Is Right, however, isn't one of them. The announcer and models are an integral part of that show, much like Vanna White is to Wheel of Fortune. Most of the game show infoboxes mention the announcers and sometimes a mention of models or panelists, particularly if they were a major part of the show.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This was already discussed previously. It is in the archives - please search. The consensus was that the infobox was too crowded - only the two regular hosts of the show should be mentioned (Drew Carey & Bob Barker). --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, there is no need for an additional infobox under "The Nighttime Price is Right" (with "additional daytime staff" under "starring") - there was previous an article for the nighttime series, and it was decided that the article be merged into the main daytime article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that article, and did not object to the merger. However, the current infobox implies the daytime series and syndicated series are separate series with separate hosts on separate networks. Again, this is an issue of consistency with other shows. Password Plus and Super Password has multiple infoboxes in one article. If you want to cut down the size of the main box, cut out the "former" section. Why I split off a separate infobox was because of fairness: we can't list just Barker but not list James or Kennedy because their runs as host were on the syndicated series. We can be consistent and list just the current on-air personalities (my personal choice), which would be one mere line longer than the current infobox and would not mention Barker, or we can list just the hosts, in which case we'd have to list ALL the hosts (except Doug Davidson, because that series was separate enough to warrant its own article). The third choice is to leave it as is, with two infoboxes. The arrangement you want is incomplete (one infobox, but no mention of the two syndicated series in it) and is in fact erroneous.
As for the archive, that discussion is dead, and as I understand it it's impolite to reopen old discussions after they're closed and that it's better to open another one.
My point is, I'm just following the precedent set by other game show articles on this site. This particular show shouldn't be treated any different.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the contents of the infoboxes, I tend to agree with Sottolacqua - Rich Fields, the models, Rod, Johnny are all supporting cast members - they are not the stars of the show. Heck, Rich's opening spiel says it all - "And now, here's the STAR of the Price is Right... Bob Barker/Drew Carey!"
Now, I did notice over on the article for Jeopardy! that the TV infobox does have a "Narrated By" field. Certainly, if Rich or the other announcers were included in the infobox, it would make more sense to put them under the "Narrated by" category rather than "Starring". However, as previously discussed, the infobox is already pretty long for an infobox (and it certainly didn't help when certain users starting putting production members that have been dead for 20 years in there).
As for the other infobox, point taken. It is technically a separate show, and other game show articles have similar in-line infoboxes. Does anybody else have any input on these issues? --Mr. Brown (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem I have: the term "starring" really can't be defined very well. When I hear the term "starring", I think of a scripted show with a continuous plot, such as a sitcom or a drama or something along those lines. Starring makes me think of an actor, not an emcee. The infobox needs to contain different material, or at least different titles, such as Host (Emcee), Announcer, etc. For a show like TPiR, models would be acceptable.
Game shows are different than other types of programs (obviously), otherwise they wouldn't have their own classification. I think the titles in the box need to be changed, making sure all the regulars are included. This should really also go for EVERY game show on Wikipedia, but good luck on that! haha. Howard 10:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Put the hosts in the presenter field.Sottolacqua (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I have a solution for this. I'm not going to post it immediately, but I have an idea to do some rewriting and trimming to the article, perhaps I'll post a draft on my user subpage and see what everyone thinks. It'll take some time for me to make the changes, though. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A New Direction

In case all have not heard, Roger Dobkowitz, the show's producer, has been dismissed by Fremantle Media after 36 years with the show, as Fremantle wishes to take the show "in a new direction". This is a sad and unfortunate day for The Price Is Right... and unfortunately, we have to change the article(s) to reflect this. --Mr. Brown (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the article, but everyone please keep in mind that the article and talk page is not a discussion forum. There are other sites for that. Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this - this post was intended as a "heads up" for those who do not know. I don't want to get into a revert war with somebody who thinks The Dob is still employed by the show. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. If I come across anything outdated going over the articles, I'll be sure to update it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With Roger Dobkowitz's dismissal and rumors abounding as to the future direction of the show (under executive producer Syd Vinnedge), I think it may behoove us to remember a few things. First, editors should remember the neutral point of view when explaining the changes. Also, there certainly will be critical reviews forthcoming from professional reviewers (such as from Variety, USA Today or Entertainment Weekly, among many others) once the format changes — if any — become known; like with the other TV/movie/song articles, these are OK to include so long as they are sourced properly. I'd be a bit reluctant to include fan posts that was included on GoldenRoad.net or other fan sites (anyone want to weigh in on this?). I realize there are many emotional opinions about the imminent changes ahead for TPiR, but we have to keep a cool head on this when writing a Wikipedia article, and that it is not our jobs to slam Drew Carey, Syd Vinnedge, Freemantle Media, etc., under the guise of writing an NPOV Wikipedia article if we personally do not like the changes (or vice versa — that is, offer praise if we do like the changes). The changes have been made; it is our job as Wikipedia editors to fairly and calmly report them. Thank you, and now as you were! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Fan posts are generally considered "no-nos" as citable material here. I believe if you search the discussion archives, it was determined a while back that The Price Is Right Timeline (found at Golden-Road) and posts by admins, who prior until the end of this season had a connection to the show through Roger, are considered citable. If there are multiple sources, I would go with the more legitimate news source, or leave it in dispute - such as the sentence on Roger's departure from the show.

On another note, I found a Variety article talking about the hiring of new Co-Executive Producer Mike Richards and have linked to it accordingly in the article, and have added him to the infobox. --Mr. Brown (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cutting back on some of the fancruft and trivia

I took a few sections out and consolidated some others to cut back on some of the stuff that's trivia or would draw people to list irrelevant information. If I am in error, feel free to revert it. (BTW, I moved the Yolanda Bowersley incident to One Bid. The section in which it was was drawing a lot of unnecessary stuff, but that one was sourced legitimately so I saved it, though I wasn't sure where it would fit in this particular article.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually died onstage?

Seeing the paroxysmic reactions of contestants leads me to wonder if anyone has actually suffered cardiac arrest during a taping...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.159.169 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but there have been two people that have fainted, both of them after winning the showcase. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember seeing clips of people fainting, there's tapes of that floating all over the internet. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
A number of people have been injured on stage, fainted, and have also gone into labor (I believe there might be an episode where a husband spins for his in-labor, on the way to the hospital wife, but I could be mistaken). Nobody has died on stage, though. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Count

I have had to undo changes the episode count twice today - there are some users who insist on counting reruns that started on Friday as part of the episode count. Just so everybody is clear, the season ended on July 17th at 6,921 episodes; anything shown after July 17th and before September 22nd is a rerun. The count can be verified at The Price Is Right Timeline, if necessary. --Mr. Brown (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Light Boarder

Is the light boarder being eliminated permanently? Because on the episode that aired on 10/20/08, the light boarder did not appear.--70.240.248.154 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Chris

Yup, gone. Not necessary to include in the article, however, as other usage/non-usage of the border is not described. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First time?

Just 5 minutes ago I witnessed a man, first name Terry, can't think of his last name, just big the EXACT amount of his showcase, I don't recall this ever happening, does anybody have any info that this might be the first exact showcase bid ever? his showcase was 23,547 dollars. Meet Me Outside (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, it was not. There was another perfect bid way back in 1973 or 1974. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Daytime Cancelation

Resolved
 – No need to worry as there is no significant source from CBS. If I find a source from CBS about this, then we will all know. Anything else is WP:CRYSTAL.--Tomballguy (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Chris

Accroding to Golden-road.net, it was announced the show could get canceled at the end of it's 40th season. I may be wrong, but that is what it said. Either way, I'm putting in something in the beginning of the article.--70.240.215.204 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Chris

Not 40th season, 39th season.--70.240.215.204 (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Chris
This does NOT mean the show could end then. It would be wise not to assume such things until a formal announcement is made one way or the other. Also, the information does not belong in the infobox, I have reverted that edit and removed the information. Anyway, that user was very suspect in adding that information as he appeared to have no connection with the show at all. Nicholasm79 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no way this information is credible. The poster listed details that don't even make any sense. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the source:
http://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,9867.0.html
Hope this works... I may be wrong about this, but I hope I am! --70.240.215.204 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Chris
That source is not reliable at all. And I'm not shooting you as a messenger, just questioning the validity of the information. Nicholasm79 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, dude, please just drop this. You're not accomplishing anything except making a fool of yourself. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Television Program Source = Television Program Enterprises?

This shows the Kennedy version of TPIR being distributed by The Television Program Source. Is that the same as Television Program Enterprises? 71.111.238.7 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Price Is Right

There should be a note somewhere, that in the 1972-Present run, the episodes airing from September 1972 until the end of 1979 were called "The NEW Price Is Right" and were one-half hour in length until the show changed to a 1-hour format at the start of the 1980 season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.67.70 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There already is a note in the first line of Broadcast History, and "new" only lasted the first year. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And the change to an hour was in 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.45 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fur Coats

Why does the article say episodes weren't allowed to be shown because of fur coats?

Barker's request, which will probably hold for as long as he exists. WikiLubber (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Any citation? Full Decent (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Episodes with furs aren't allowed to be shown because Barker is an animal-rights activist and it was his call when the issue of repeats came up. Is it right? No, since the ban includes the first three episodes taped in 1972 (not the first three aired) and a majority of Dennis James' tenure as host. But it has continued to stand since 1994, even though GSN screwed up a few times. Daniel Benfield (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The poster was asking for a citation. In my experience, even the current show staff can't confirm this as official policy.JTRH (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Episode Count

I foresee an ongoing edit war with the episode count, since the show billed the Nov. 5, 2009, episode as #7000, and there are editors who quite reasonably assume that the show knows exactly how many eps. it's aired. It's already been changed to 7000 and reverted at least twice since yesterday. For some time now, this article's ep. count has been 146 (?) greater than the show's official count. That's the result of some extensive research by User:TPIRFanSteve and others on another site, and while I'm willing to accept its accuracy, I'm wondering if it can be independently sourced, i.e., not just linking to the relevant page at g.r-.net. Otherwise, it's going to be repeatedly changed back and forth, and the editors who hold to the higher number are going to be in the position of repeatedly arguing that golden-road.net is a more authoritative source than the show itself. Even if that's true, there are editors who will never accept it. If the higher number can't be independently sourced, we may end up getting stuck with "7000+" as the only number that can be widely accepted. Thoughts? JTRH (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been 7,146 episodes counted as daytime (the "Salutes the Troops" daytime episode that aired in primetime doesn't count as a daytime show according to CBS, otherwise "#7,000" would have aired a day earlier than it did). As such, the show's official count will always be 146 shows behind unless they fix the problem at some point before the real #8,000. (It's been over 100 shows behind since "#5,000" in 1998.)
Not even Drew's statement that it was Rich Fields' 1,001st episode is true – he's done 1,006 if all primetime specials that he announced on are counted.
As far as sourcing it goes, I don't think anybody except Steve and a few others know about the true episode count. And yes, Golden-Road.Net is a more authoritative source on the show than the show itself. The site discusses Barker's successes and failures, unlike the craptastic 50 Years special in May 2007.
So since Steve knows what he's talking about, the info stays in. If he adds something to a Price is Right-related page, it's because it's true. Daniel Benfield (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I said I accept the accuracy of Steve's statistics. That's not my point. Can we somehow independently verify the accuracy of these statistics beyond simply asserting that g-r.net is a more accurate and authoritative source than the show itself? Otherwise, we're in for an ongoing edit war with people who will continue to insist that "the show said episode 7000 was Nov. 5" and we have no way of refuting them. JTRH (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase have all been consolidated and merged into the Gameplay section of the page. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase all contain incredible amounts of intricate detail and unsourced trivia. These articles can easily be edited into relevant concise articles and merged into this one. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge all that are to retain coverage, delete all others. Bongomatic 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all pages as-is. As with the pricing-game discussion, most information is verifiable because TPIRFanSteve knows what he's talking about; that's why he (and I, to a much lesser extent from my viewpoint) put some of that stuff in the various articles.
All three pages have much to discuss and many format differences, which will only serve to make the main page longer if they are merged. Besides that, people are already confusing the Showcase Round as the "Showcase Showdown" – we don't need to be adding to that problem by merging. Daniel Benfield (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Once again, TPIRFanSteve's sources are self-published sources and are part of original, non-sourced and non-verified research. Golden-Road.net, as a fansite, does not meet the criteria of a reliable third-party publication.
The secondary articles, as they are now, contain incredible amounts of intricate minutia that could never be sourced. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Selectively merge all per Bongomatic and Sottolacqua. There is far too much information and trivia in TPIR's main article, and far too much information and trivia in the individual articles on the rounds. It would be like giving a whole article to the Money Cards, Fast Money or the Winner's Circle — there might be a lot to say about it, but how much of that is actually relevant information that's covered in reliable sources? I would say "very little." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If well-researched fan sites aren't acceptable as sources, and the show site itself isn't considered an independent source, is it even possible to "source" the names and descriptions of the games? It's not like there have been academic journal articles written about pricing games. JTRH (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
So are we going to end up with an article that mentions no pricing games by name? JTRH (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, unless there's some TPIR book which mentions them by name. I have been told that there are books about the show (which I wouldn't doubt, if Jeopardy! has a book). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Stan Blits, the show's musical director and contestant coordinator (if that's the proper term) published a history of the show called Come on Down! a couple of years ago. I can't put my hands on my copy right now, but it's out there. Barker's recently-published Priceless Memories might be a good source, too. JTRH (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Are the fansites well-researched? Most of the sources in these articles are coming from one specific person who edits a Price is Right FAQ and are based on his independent research and calculations. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That site is very well researched. Unfortunately for Wikipurposes, it's mostly OR and not independently verified. JTRH (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And that's my point as to why these articles continue to be unsourced—that site and work simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards...so I think most of us are in agreement about (not) using that site as a source, right? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As a participant on g-r.net, I probably have a COI making a statement about its credibility, but certainly "g-r.net says so" (which is frequently suggested here), with no other sourcing, doesn't meet the standard for an independently verifiable Wikipedia source. I've emailed User:TPIRFanSteve, the author of much of that (and this) work and asked if he has any independent sourcing. He should participate in this discussion, if possible, before we make a decision, but I don't think he's very active on Wikipedia these days, and I haven't heard back from him. JTRH (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The reliable source guidelines say that fansites should almost never be used unless their authors are notable. Given that game show material is often hard to source reliably, I wonder if maybe this situation could be better taken up on the reliable sources noticeboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd say Steve is a notable author, but I'm outnumbered 4-1 by Sottolacqua (who has shown before that he may have something against me), TenPoundHammer (who I very much respect as a Wikipedia editor), JTRH (who I also trust), and Bongomatic (who I can't vouch for credibility through interaction with him, but his talk page indicates that he's trustworthy). So I guess I haven't got much more of a say – yes, trying to cite one guy and his "fansite" is against Wikipedia policy, but 99.9% of the time he's been more accurate than the show itself (he actually counted the daytime episodes and discovered that the show's official episode count was off for every milestone {and has only gotten worse since 1998}; further, it has been shown that Bob Barker lied about most of the show's "historic moments" {and even admitted that on-air several times}, but Steve {and Game Show Network, in a funny 1990s promo} was always right – and if Steve wasn't right, he was usually close). Daniel Benfield (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: On top of that, this has already been discussed on this talk page a year ago. The consensus was not to merge because, in the words of Twigboy, "merging them back in here just would add too much bulk". He was seconded by Briguy52748 ("Structurally, the article seems to be OK ... my first thought would be to not do this, at least with the Showcase Showdown, because of their unique play and production elements.") So with that, I stand by my original vote of Keep the articles separate. Daniel Benfield (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for your statement above. (Steve, if you're reading this, I mean no disrespect to your work here.) With all due respect, the issue is not whether Steve is a reliable source or "knows what he's talking about." I trust his research and his statistics, but that's not good enough. The issue for Wikipedia is whether any of this can be independently verified. For example, can you source any of your statements above?
"99.9% of the time he's been more accurate than the show itself". How do you know? How do I know? How do we know? In other words, can you prove it, and how? If not, why should anyone believe us?
"he actually counted the daytime episodes and discovered that the show's official episode count was off..." (I've read that page on g-r.net.) How, exactly, do we know that Steve's right and the show is wrong? Has anyone else checked either his math or the show's? And, as I said, I trust Steve's work, but how can someone prove that he didn't just make it up? (I'm not suggesting that he did. I'm asking how he can prove that he didn't.) Otherwise, we're in the position of insisting (without proof or supporting evidence) that we know more about The Price Is Right than the staff of The Price Is Right does. Good luck convincing the Wikipedia readership of that.
"further, it has been shown..." With all due respect, Daniel, buddy, how much weight should we give to the views of an editor who can't even objectively discuss editing an article without his (inexplicable) hatred of Bob Barker entering the conversation? JTRH (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"How much weight should we give to the views of an editor who can't even objectively discuss editing an article without his (inexplicable) hatred of Bob Barker entering the conversation?" My opinions about Barker are irrelevant to this discussion, and I know that, and my thoughts towards him were not in my mind when I wrote that response; Bob did state on-air that he made certain "records" up – any time Cliff Hangers was played perfectly, for example, he would say it was the first time it happened (I've seen that happen myself). There was an instance on September 20, 2006 (third show of Season 35) where Bob asked when Ten Chances was last played perfectly – Roger Dobkowitz said "12 years ago" (1994; the Davidson version had a perfect playing), but Barker amended that to "14 years ago" (both of these despite it having happened a few times between 1994 and 2006). Not all of my information comes from Steve's writings, mind you – I do have my own collection of episodes, which I have carefully noted and drawn some information from (some of the info in Steve's writings was submitted by me – all info in the Timeline about episodes I've uploaded to YouTube were my submissions).
So, to summarize, my opinions of Barker are irrelevant and not on my mind when I brought up the aforementioned "records errors"; I know some of Steve's writings are true because I have the episodes (and submitted info to him based on my collection); I know that it will be nearly-impossible to certify a good majority of his information through third-party sources; although others have checked Steve's episode-count, they're all members of Golden-Road.Net; and yes, the show itself is generally wrong on certain aspects (the episode count being short by 146 is probably the biggest). --Daniel Benfield (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I don't doubt the factual accuracy of any of what you said. I remember Bob quoting records that clearly made no sense. I thought it was a "joke" and not a "lie." More importantly, though, what we're talking about is independent verification of that accuracy. And so far, we don't have any. If Steve were to publish (not self-publish) a book (not a Website) of his research and cite his sources (e.g., "interview with Producer Roger Dobkowitz on xx date"), all of it could be used as a source here. Of course, someone else would have to write the articles to satisfy whichever Wikipolicy it is that discourages the author of an article from citing his own outside work as a source. I hate to be this much of a stickler, because I know what it's like to be on the other end of that discussion. I wrote hundreds of words in the Wheel of Fortune article that were based on my observations as a contestant, much of which information isn't publicly available. Most of it was challenged and nuked as a combination of OR and unsourced - and they were right. JTRH (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Showcase Showdown

This is a draft of how I propose the Showcase Showdown article should be edited. Please provide any comments, changes, sources, discussion or opinions if you can. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the expansion to 60 minutes in 1975, each episode features two Showcase Showdowns, occurring after the third and sixth pricing games. Each features the three contestants who played the preceding pricing games.
The contestants play in the order of the value of their winnings thus far (including in the One Bid round), with the contestant who has won the most spinning last. In the rare event two or all three players are tied in winnings, a coin toss or random drawing determines which player goes first.
The wheel contains twenty sections showing values from five cents through $1.00, in increments of five cents. [1] The first contestant spins the wheel and may choose to stop with their score or spin again, adding the value of the second spin to their first. However, if a contestant's total score exceeds $1.00 they are eliminated from the game. The contestant whose score is nearest to $1.00 without going over advances to the Showcase at the end of each episode.
The wheel must make one complete revolution for the spin to qualify, and the contestant must spin again if they fail to do so. Disabled contestants or those otherwise unable make a qualifying spin are generally assisted by either a family member/friend or the host.
From 1975 until 1978, any contestant whose score equaled $1.00 (from either one spin or a combination of two spins) received a $1,000 bonus. Beginning in December of 1978, contestants who spun $1.00 were also awarded a bonus spin at the end of the Showcase Showdown in addition to the $1,000. At this time, the 5¢ and 15¢ spaces (which are adjacent to the $1.00 space) were repainted green. For the bonus spin, the wheel is positioned on the 5¢ and the contestant takes their spin. If the wheel stops on either green section, the contestant receives a bonus of $10,000. If the wheel stops on the $1.00 during the bonus spin, the contestant wins an additional $25,000. Prior to 2009, these bonuses were $5,000 and $10,000, respectively. During their bonus spin, the contestant must spin the wheel so it makes at least one complete revolution. If the contestant fails to do so they do not win any bonus money and are not given another spin.
If, after all three contestants have competed, two or more contestants are tied with the leading score, each competes in a spin-off. The tied contestants are given one additional spin and the player who achieves the higher score advances to the showcase. Multiple spin-offs are played until the tie is broken. If two or more contestants tied with a score of $1.00, their bonus spin also determines their spin-off score.
(This comes after the unsigned comment immediately above) Fine with me. Can we source the date when the bonuses began and increased? JTRH (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else have comments regarding this before merging? Sottolacqua (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One Bid

Here's a draft of how I propose the One Bid article should be merged into this one. Please provide any comments, changes, sources, discussion or opinions if you can.

The four players in Contestants' Row compete in a one bid qualifying game to determine which contestant will play the next pricing game. A prize is shown and, beginning with the last player to be called down (or the player furthest-left during the first one bid), each contestant gives one bid for the item. The order of bidding moves from left to right. Contestants must bid in whole dollars and may not bid the same amount as any player bid previously for that item. The player whose bid is closest to the actual retail price of the prize without going over wins the prize and plays the next pricing game.
If all four contestants overbid, a buzzer sounds before the price is revealed. The host announces the lowest bid, the bids are erased and the bidding process is repeated in the same manner with the contestants instructed to bid lower than the lowest of the original bids.
If one of the contestants bids exactly the price of the item, including during a re-bid, a bell rings before the price is revealed. From 1977 until 1998, a player who made a "perfect bid" received a $100 bonus. In 1998, the bonus for perfect bids was increased to $500. On The Price Is Right Million Dollar Spectacular the bonus is $1,000.
Sottolacqua (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good rewrite, so I'm just gonna Be Bold and merge it into the article. If anybody wants to change it back, then fine. Whatever. Vonbontee (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit was already made in December 2009 when the stand-alone article for One Bid was merged into this one. I've kept most of what you've changed but taken out the indentation formats and capitalization changes. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game and 95 other pages up for deletion

FYI. Ikip (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect showcase bid

Shouldn't this article mention the perfect showcase bid of Terry Kniess? It was the only time in the show's history that a perfect matching bid was entered. See the Esquire magazine article: TV's Crowning Moment of Awesome. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Burton Richardson taking over as announcer in 2010?

I've heard a rumor on YouTube saying that Burton Richardson might take over the role of announcing after the show finishes with the guests announcers for the beginning of Season 39. -MegastarLV 2:06 August 13, 2010

Rumors on YouTube are not verifiable sources that such a decision has been made. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rotating cast members

Someone's just added two of the three current guest announcers to the personnel entry in the infobox. Since the rotating models aren't listed as show personnel, I tend to think the rotating announcers shouldn't be either. And if there are quite a few guest announcers this season, and the list gets too long, it's going to clutter up the box. Your thoughts? JTRH (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Only permanent cast members should be included in the infobox. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

George Gray

Drew stopped mentioning George Gray as guest announcer. I guess he won the job. 24.3.64.94 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but we can't assume that unless and until an official statement is made. JTRH (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

One Bid image

File:Onebidseason37.jpg is currently being used in the article. User Fftest22 uploaded File:899 Wins.jpg to replace it. An IP user re-added the image when it was later tagged for deletion. C'mon people! We can't upload another image when there's already one there!

There's no reason why images can't be updated or replaced. What is your rationale for keeping the original image versus the new one? Sottolacqua (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Maybe if I click "Upload a new version of this file", at least that'll be an easier way of updating it.

-MegastarLV (talk) November 2010

Requested move

{

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) → The Price is Right (U.S. game show) — Since when does "is" get capitalized?. Per WP:LOWERCASE CTJF83 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment: The show title capitalizes the I in "Is." Furthemore, a retitle/move might result in confusion and needless redirects. Keep these where they are. JTRH (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per precedent; last discussion had several policy-based reasons for "Is" being capitalized. Also, WP:LOWERCASE seems to contradict Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles, which says that words like "is" are capitalized in titles; also, literally every title I've ever seen on this Wiki with "is" in it has had that word capitalized. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Being as "is" is a verb, it would make sense to be capitalized like any other verb... but if there's a more compelling reason I wouldn't be surprised. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Two reliable sources: Bob Barker's autobiography, Priceless Memories and show staffer Stan Blits' Come On Down! both use the capital I. That's it. How do I move to close this discussion? JTRH (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Uh...you don't, you wait 7 days....so, the opening credits of the show don't mean anything to anyone? CTJF83 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Three authoritative sources (Bob Barker, the staffer who interviews potential contestants and the show's own Website) have been provided to verify that the capital I is the correct spelling. There really isn't any need for further discussion about this, and the requested move would clearly detract from the accuracy of the article(s). And if you're talking about the opening logo, a literal reading would be "the Price is Right". Are you also planning to request a move to a lower-case "t"? I'm sorry if I come across as snotty about this, but you've come across as a bit condescending in your abrupt, snarky dismissal of anything that contradicts your view of this. You lose your attitude, and I'll lose mine. JTRH (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per manual of style. We capitalize verbs, including "is", in titles. The show's logo is not a reliable source for orthography because the cases of particular letters are assigned for graphic reasons, not lexcial ones. (If we were to copy the show's logo capitalization scheme, we'd title this article "the PRice is Right" and that's just silly.) Powers T 23:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from The Price Is Right $1,000,000 Spectacular

I think The Price Is Right $1,000,000 Spectacular should be merged in, because it's not its own show — it's just a subset of the existing show. Almost none of the show is substantially different enough to warrant its own article. All that's really needed is a shortish summary "the show did $1,000,000 spectaculars from X to Y, which had an increased budget and offered chances at $1,000,000" with maybe a couple sentences on how the million was offered. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge it in. There aren't separate articles for the series billed as "The Nighttime Price Is Right" from the 1970s/1980s. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been 12 days and nobody's objected, so I've redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, from late 2003 until Barker's retirement wasn't there a few times where there have been no million dollar spins in the showcase showdowns and the winner of the showcase would get a million dollar spin at the end? Can I put that in, even if I can't find a source?--E2e3v6 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Find a source first. JTRH (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

References to fansite

Please do not add references to fansites or personal fan pages. These links are not acceptable sources.

The addition of DiPirro's "farewell" message has also been removed. There is no verifiable proof that this is his account on the fan message board, someone posting on his behalf or simply another fan impostor or member of the same fansite posing as him. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is coming in terribly late, but I find it funny that you, of all people, would be worried about citing Golden-Road.net. The fact that it's a fansite notwithstanding (and yes, I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's policy about this -- I just don't care), you can't seriously believe thhat you're contributing to the accuracy of the article by removing anything that uses my FAQ as a reference. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I forget. Has this been taken to WP:RSN yet? I believe there are certain circumstances under which a forum post can be cited (i.e., if there's some way to prove the authenticity of the post). Steve's wiki might also get a pass since it's set up so that literally only he can edit it, with info straight from the source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field". If the article were about TPIRFanSteve, the fansite or the wiki contained on the fansite, links to that wiki as a source would be acceptable. However, a self-published wiki or a message board on a fansite—a site has no affiliation to the production of The Price Is Right—cannot be used as a source within this article without references on that site proving that TPIRFanSteve's self-published content is correct. Additionally, posts on the fansite's message board by members who claim to be production members of The Price Is Right cannot be used as sources since the user accounts cannot proven to actually be from the individuals claiming to be who they are.
If you're citing production information that's changed or the air date of a specific episode, the cite episode template is more than sufficient to use when referencing the episode in which the event happened. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, none of this addresses what I actually said -- you and I both know that you're familiar with Golden-Road.net, so regardless of how you are technically supposed to handle this, do you really believe that holding fast to the policy in this particular case is improving the article? -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:IAR certainly applies here. Steve obviously has a lot of "ins" with the show that make his wiki rather authoritative, although I'll grant it could be a little clearer about where he gets the info. I don't know what would be the best way to verify that the forum post was indeed from DiPirro, but I'm sure he can think of something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
TPIRFanSteve, as a member of a message board/internet community who is at best third party to a relationship the message board organizers have with a former staff member that (for all intents and purposes) ended in 2008 when that staff member left the show does not qualify as an "in". Sottolacqua (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I never realized that Roger being fired magically caused all the info I'd gotten from the show's records to not have come from them anymore. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time the laws of physics go haywire. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There are also no footnotes in the fansite wiki clarifying where information came from, if from a piece of paper/record book, a conversation another party had with someone affiliated with the show, etc. Using the cite episode template is an acceptable format to footnote something that happened on a specific episode and would be more appropriate than a fansite as a reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Then if you're already well-versed in it, why not seek out help in using it to cite the appropriate episodes instead of deleting anything that doesn't use it already? -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GA?

All right. I am thinking about getting this article to at least GA status. There are still things that we need to do. Examples include:

  • Lead section - needs to be expanded to at least three to four paragraphs.
  • Winnings records - needs to have sources.
  • Broadcast history - needs to have more sources.
  • Announcers section - substitute announcers needs to be added with sources.
  • Hosts section - Barker and Carey's sections can be merged with substitute hosts together.

Any other comments or suggestions on improving this article would be very much appreciated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotating Announcers

We're a little more than a week away from the start of the show's milestone 40th season on CBS and since George Gray is now the announcer, I think it would be wise to delete the facts about the other rotating announcers from last year. What do you say?--E2e3v6 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, and the opposition makes particularly strong points. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) → The Price Is Right (1972 U.S. game show) – The current title must redirect to the franchise, The Price Is Right. George Ho (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. The current version of The Price Is Right is much better known than the original, but an ambiguous term like this should redirect to the franchise, especially since there have been spinoffs of the 1972 version not covered in detail at the current target. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This verison is most-identifiable as the "U.S. game show" and it is unlikely a searcher will be seeking the 1956 or 1994 version (or any other international version) when searching for "The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)". It is not explicitly necessary to disambiguate this article as the "1972" version. AldezD (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Sorry George, but I see what you are trying to do here, but that title is way too problematic. The show has been on for 40 years and regulating a single year to the article title doesn't portray the correct history of the show. If you have an alternate title please try that instead. JOJ Hutton 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: According to the article, the show started in 1972, but has spanned many subsequent years, and continues in current production. The current article status may need some kind of cleanup, but this title change doesn't seem to accomplish what is necessary. --BarrelProof (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode from 1 April 2014 and article infobox

Please do not re-add Craig Ferguson to the infobox. A pesron hosting the program for a one-episode stunt should not be listed, just as individuals who were temporary/substitute announcers or were auditioning for the role are not listed. AldezD (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The sequence of the money values on the wheel is 5¢, $1.00, 15¢, 80¢, 35¢, 60¢, 20¢, 40¢, 75¢, 55¢, 95¢, 50¢, 85¢, 30¢, 65¢, 10¢, 45¢, 70¢, 25¢, 90¢.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Price_Is_Right/Archive_5&oldid=1149400433"