Jump to content

Talk:The Price Is Right (1956 American game show)

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

The "gimmick"

[edit]

Bill Cullen often brought out what he would refer to as a "gimmick", which was usually a mechanical toy. Just how frequently this occured, and whether it was primarily done to pad out a show which was running a little short, I don't know. Does anyone else out there (that small subset who remembers when dialing a phone call entailed the use of an actual dial) remember this or know more about it? Rlquall 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tpir56.jpg

[edit]

Image:Tpir56.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) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free forum about The Price is Right

[edit]

The Price is Right forum. We have stuff for everything about TPIR including all games, the future, and more. We also have a sandbox and a water cooler forum (for off-topic stuff). Come and join in. Membership is free and we need moderators. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shows that have aired on the "big three" U.S. networks

[edit]

TPIR is not the only show to have aired on CBS, NBC and ABC. Password, Match Game and (as of summer 2008) Family Feud will have all aired on each of the "big three" at a different time. I have removed the incorrect statement from the article. Justinthebull (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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

Requested move 23 October 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: Not Moved - too many overbids Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show) → The Price Is Right (original U.S. game show) – Normally, year is used for further disambiguation. However, COPS (1988 TV series) was renamed to COPS (animated TV series), which I favored, although it defies what WP:NCTV says. But that's not the end of the world. Per WP:GUIDES, we can make exceptions and then apply our common sense. Or we can use WP:RECOGNIZABILITY instead. Because the original lasted into 1960s, perhaps changing to "original" makes more sense. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to The Price Is Right (1956–65 U.S. game show) would be more recognizable than labeling it "original". AldezD (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you issue is thta you believe the current title of the Cops page violates the WP:NCTV wouldnt it make more sense to either request another move based around the convention in question of initiate a discussion at the convention page?--67.68.163.32 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@67.68.163.32: FYI, I opposed extra disambiguation on Cops (TV (series), which is discouraged by WP:Precision and WP:disambiguation. Adding "reality" would complicate matters more. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did propose changing to "animation" for clarity. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion seems to be on the wrong Talk page. The nominator is trying to move a different article. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify, BarrelProof: I want to change 1956 to "original". George Ho (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But your entire justification is expressed in terms of your dissatisfaction with the renaming of some other article that is only related in a very tangential way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COPS (animated TV series) is completely unrelated to Cops (TV series). The move was appropriate. The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show) is tangentially related to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) because concepts in the latter were originated in the former. Moving this page because you disagree with a move of an unrelated television show is not an appropriate action to take. AldezD (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made modifications, BarrelProof and 69.140.57.31. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Using the year the show began airing is a more appropriate way to differentiate between the former program and the one currently airing. Also, The New Price Is Right (1994 game show) is an appropriate way to disambiguate between other syndicated and similarly-titled versions of the program. AldezD (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The exception cited in the request makes sense because it results in greater clarity. The one proposed would have the opposite effect; in this context, "1956" is clearer than "original" would be. (On a related note, there doesn't appear to be another show with this title that debuted in 1956, so "U.S." seems superfluous.) —David Levy 04:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David Levy, but would Support move to The Price Is Right (1956 game show) also per David Levy. SnowFire (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Price Is Right (1956 game show) per David Levy. Using original as a disambiguator is very strange. kennethaw88 • talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Price Is Right (1956 game show) as per others. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also don't think it's a great idea to remove the "U.S." as the Australian version currently titled The Price Is Right (1957–74 Australian game show) started just a year later. I doubt the years alone will be enough to adequately distinguish the titles for readers.--Cúchullain t/c 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, what you're opposing does not seem to be what was proposed. The proposal does not remove "U.S." —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited for clarity. I oppose both the proposed version and the alternative suggestion The Price Is Right (1956 game show).--Cúchullain t/c 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the years alone will be enough to adequately distinguish the titles for readers.
    Your position is at odds with Wikipedia's naming conventions, wherein "the years alone" routinely serve this purpose, except when one is applicable to multiple subjects. For example, we have the following articles:
    Per our standard practice, only the articles about the two 2011 films have titles conveying the respective nations of origin. —David Levy 03:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Levy: Your example, for films, may not be specifically applicable here, because films more clearly apply only to a specific year, while TV series can run over several years or even decades. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) § Additional disambiguation doesn't specifically address this. It shows how to prefix the country of broadcast and how to prefix the year of release or series debut, but doesn't prohibit using both for additional clarity. I think that the point that with two long-running series that debuted in consecutive years, relying only on that minor difference (which is less significant than the country of broadcast) is borderline sufficient disambiguation – is a good point which is well taken. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) § Additional disambiguation doesn't specifically address this.
    Per Wikipedia:Article titles § Precision, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
    "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria," but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) contains no such advice. (As you noted, the matter isn't addressed.)
    It shows how to prefix the country of broadcast and how to prefix the year of release or series debut, but doesn't prohibit using both for additional clarity.
    When neither piece of information fully disambiguates on its own, this is essential. Otherwise, to "[use] both for additional clarity" would be to allow an exception to swallow the rule. No other game show (or television program of any kind) titled "The Price Is Right" existed in 1956, so including "U.S." in the article's title provides no additional disambiguation. We don't append parenthetical language merely for the sake of conveying information about an article's subject, even when it contrasts with that of a different subject. Using the title "The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show, hosted by Bill Cullen)" (and so on) would make the article's subject more readily recognizable, but that isn't where we draw the line. We're "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
    I think that the point that with two long-running series that debuted in consecutive years, relying only on that minor difference (which is less significant than the country of broadcast) is borderline sufficient disambiguation – is a good point which is well taken.
    I'd be more inclined to agree if "1956" presented some type of overlap (e.g., if another game show called "The Price Is Right" debuted in 1955 and continued airing in 1956). That isn't the case, so I see no material distinction between this instance and one in which two films sharing a title were released within a year or two of each other. —David Levy 01:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NCTV, both nation of origin and the year are acceptable disambiguation. In this case, yes, standard practice would recommend the year be used on its own, but that's liable to be confusing. I don't think the year alone is sufficient to distinguish two shows with the same title and concept that started airing only a year apart. In some similar cases similar solutions have been determined to better serve readers. Recently in this RM, COPS (1988 TV series) was moved to COPS (animated TV series) because that was determined to be a clearer disambiguator in light of the more famous COPS, which first aired in 1989. This is a reasonable exception to standard practice; as Wbm1056 says, it's not like the guideline recommends against this, it doesn't address the matter at all.--Cúchullain t/c 05:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NCTV, both nation of origin and the year are acceptable disambiguation.
    Agreed. In this particular case, however, the nation of origin doesn't disambiguate (because more than one game show called "The Price Is Right" has been broadcast in the United State, and because no game show with that title existed elsewhere in 1956).
    In this case, yes, standard practice would recommend the year be used on its own, but that's liable to be confusing.
    How is it more confusing than two films with the same title, released in a similar time frame? (I realize that a television series is ongoing, but no overlap occurred in 1956.)
    For example, we have Boy (2009 film) and Boy (2010 film). I don't see a material distinction.
    I don't think the year alone is sufficient to distinguish two shows with the same title and concept that started airing only a year apart.
    I don't regard the shared concept as relevant, as that similarity (or the absence thereof, as in the example cited above) doesn't become apparent to a reader until at least one of the articles is reached (at which point the nation of origin is clearly identified in the first sentence, rendering the issue moot).
    Regarding the difference of only a year, at what point does a chronological gap become sufficient to enable disambiguation on its own? Two years? Three years? Longer?
    This is why I'm not a fan of arbitrary exceptions. They might feel helpful on an individual basis, but they replace an objective application of established criteria with subjective determinations by handfuls of editors, thereby inviting disputes across other topics' articles when users disagree on whether to carve out similar exceptions there.
    The purpose of having naming criteria is to establish a consistent setup, implemented and maintained with minimal difficulty and unpredictability.
    In some similar cases similar solutions have been determined to better serve readers. Recently in this RM, COPS (1988 TV series) was moved to COPS (animated TV series) because that was determined to be a clearer disambiguator in light of the more famous COPS, which first aired in 1989.
    As I noted above, I agree with that move, which replaced one parenthetical disambiguator with another. I would not agree with a move to COPS (1988 animated TV series), which is analogous to this article's current title.
    This is a reasonable exception to standard practice; as Wbm1056 says, it's not like the guideline recommends against this, it doesn't address the matter at all.
    And as I said, that means that it doesn't document an exception to the relevant policy (and you've acknowledged that "standard practice would recommend the year be used on its own"). —David Levy 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is I think the natural distinction readers would make between the articles isn't the precise year the 1950s incarnations of the show debuted, it's that one was American and one was Australian. "U.S." and "Australian" aren't available on their own due to the existence of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) and The Price Is Right (Australian game show), which is perhaps part of the problem. I'd regard the years as providing needed disambiguation for the national terms that are more useful for the reader.--Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title history

[edit]

So this has been moved several times, starting from day #1:

  1. Created 2 June 2006‎ as The Price is Right (1956 US version)
  2. Moved 2 June 2006‎ to The Price Is Right (1956 US version) (Incorrect capitalization)
  3. Moved 4 July 2006 to The Price Is Right (1956) (Cleaner rename)
  4. Moved 21 September 2006 to The Price Is Right (1956 game show) (Renaming page to Wikipedia naming conventions.)
  5. Moved 10 January 2010 to The Price Is Right (1956-1965) (uniformity with counterpart)
  6. Moved 12 January 2010 to The Price Is Right (Original U.S. game show) (Undid recent move.) [well, not exactly]
  7. Moved 11 February 2010 to The Price Is Correct (Original United States game show) (more professional tone for an encyclopedia) [smile]
  8. Moved 5 April 2010 to The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show) (This is a more proper place for it.)

After further review, it seems that the consensus is to move it back to the title of 21 September 2006 – 10 January 2010 (#4). Are your bids locked in? Is that your final answer? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
So the two longest running titles are:
The current title is the most stable, and after eight iterations, there should be a compelling reason to change it. I'm not sure I see that. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't favor inertia over consistency with Wikipedia's naming conventions (which, I'll note, were cited in a single instance). Most of those titles were short-lived because they were obviously inappropriate. #8 (whose structure would be MoS-compliant if circumstances differed) has outlived #4 simply because it happened to follow 2010's silliness instead of preceding it. There was no valid reason to move the article from The Price Is Right (1956 game show) in the first place. —David Levy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Price_Is_Right_(1956_American_game_show)&oldid=1199792220"