Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TPIRFanSteve (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 5 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived Talk: 1 • 2

Oh, my, this needs help!

This is prefaced with the fact that I am a huge fan, but something has to be done about this article. It has become overloaded with so much fancruft, that I even lost interest in the article. With due respect for the contributors, I cite a sample of overemphasis on the trivial:

• The tube-top-dropping incident should be no more than three sentences.
• Why is there a history of the contestant row colors? Also, "eggcrate displays," while I know what is meant, is an undefined term limited to game show fandom .
  • As it's used in other articles I suggested a stub for "eggcrate displays", but heck if I'm going to be the one to describe them. I'll leave it to the engineers out there. Frackintoaster 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The "Audience and contestant selection" section is way to lengthy and includes information not related to the section header.

I say this in advance, rather than forge ahead with a major overhaul, that we need to re-evaluate this article, come up with a pruning strategy, and perhaps break out new articles (Bill Cullen and Doug Davidson versions come to mind). Those that do have separate articles (Showcase Showdown and Barker's Beauties) need shorter sections and the {{main}} or {{details}} template, for example:

Main article: Barker's Beauties

For more details on this topic, see Showcase Showdown (The Price Is Right).

The section on Pricing Games is a perfect example and should be the barometer for future editing.

The Price Is Right is such a part of Americana, that it ought be a feature article. So instead of making massive edits, does anyone have any suggestions as to how we should tackle this? Should we set a goal as to when we should have the article ready for peer review? —Twigboy 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd start with breaking out the Cullen-era TPiR info into a separate article. That's something I've been meaning to do, but just haven't because someone will probably wind up suggesting that it be merged. It really does need its own separate article. ]

OK, I've created a separate page for the Cullen-era TPiR. I've also stuck a cleanup tag there for someone to edit later (don't have time right now); the section has also been trimmed, as it has essentially been moved to this new page. ]

Also, if someone can add an image of the Cullen-era TPiR to that new page, that'd be terrific. BTW — is there a "requested images" page dedicated solely to game shows? ]

Made some major organizational changes today. Other Facts section changed to Trivia; the big section on Contestant's Row colors was moved there where it seemed less likely to bog down the flow of the article. The Production Companies section had a bit of good info on producers but the rest was a debatable section on shark-jumping along with GSM info that is now redundant due to the GSM section at the top of the article. Slot Machines didn't seem to deserve its own section and was moved under Home Games, even though that may make the term "Home Games" a little off. Better ideas on that naming? Frackintoaster 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Price" in other media or Beyond the television show would convey the board games, computer games, slot machines, and even the "stage" show. —Twigboy 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I also moved info on the Canada airings to Trivia. That's probably not the best place for it in the long run... but should we move it to the "around the world" article? After all, it does reference the US version. Still, it's not worthy of a subsection standing alone. Frackintoaster 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it belongs in the "around the world" section. I did it and heavily edited it.--JKPrivett 07:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an argument for removing more specific show air dates unless absolutely necessary to the meaning of the article. For example: the taping and original airdates of the New Orleans Katrina related shows is crucial to understanding why there was an uproar, and an argument can be made for stating the air date of the 'Winless show'. But it was intended for May 6, 2005, but was pre-empted (MDS section)? Or, two episodes intended for November 3 and 4 were moved up to take their places (Katrina section)? Unless someone is compiling 'The Complete Episode Guide to The Price is Right', I believe this level of detail is going to be confusing and unnecessary to the meaning of the Katrina section, which is talking about the direct impact of Hurricane Katrina on the show. Nor do I think it's particularly important that the June 12 episode was taped before the May 29 one, necessitating reversing the order of the words 'First' and 'Second' - they aired in the order they aired, and my use of the word 'first' and 'second' was as in 'air date' anyway. I would like to suggest that it is possible for this article to be informative and meaningful in context without stating every technical detail or exception to a rule - and would be a better article for using such a standard as a guidepost. I believe this may be part of why the cleanup tag was attached to this article in the first place; or, at least, I'd like to add my vote to keeping the cleanup tag for that reason now.

(Editorially, I suspect that once the June 12 episode has aired, they won't be aired with the forewards by the Senators again anyway, making them 'normal episodes'. At that point, that entire article section could probably be reduced to a broad stroke description of the impact (two shows were postponed from airing until aired with forewards by Louisiana's senators) and put in the trivia section. Not to 'trivialize', but this will be a footnote in two weeks. Skybunny 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Overview section: could that be better served as "Personnel" or "Cast And Crew"? Perhaps bring Bob, the announcers and the Barker's Beauties in under that heading? That would standardize the article more, as well, in spite of the fact that no Game Show Project exists (pioneering us, we is) :) Frackintoaster 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone mind if the gargantuan "...in Popular culture" section gets a spinoff page of its own (pun partially intended) --JKPrivett 07:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Goldrushcavi 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have started work on the first three sections in my sandbox. I think the cast, crew, production company could go under one heading. I also rejiggered the "other versions." I'm not completely satisfied, that's why I left it in the sandbox. —Twigboy 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Personally, I think we need to hold off on adding more images at this point. We are starting to get a little cluttered, with the text funneling between images in some places. Are we starting to dilute the fair use of these images? (Each one of the image is fair use on its own, but I think the fair-use arguement diminishes with every new photo.) I hope that we can get some strong editing to the article done first, and then we can look at the use of the visuals later. —Twigboy 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to tell that to Cheesehead? Please? 'Cause apparently, he doesn't care. -TPIRFanSteve 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What's in a name?

The current version of The Price is Right should be at The Price is Right. The previous version from the 1950's should be The Price is Right (1956 game show). Foreign versions need the "game show" tagged on it (The Price is Right (UK game show), etc), and the "New Price is Right" article should probably be named "The New Price Is Right (1994 game show)".

This is so that the names conform to other game show articles, to keep consistency. --TonicBH 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed. This is a ridiculous move and ought to be undone straight away. (In fact, if there are no objections in a couple of hours, I'll probably do it myself -- although if anyone does it before that, please remember that "Is" is supposed to be capitalized.) The current daytime show is what 99% of people searching for "The Price Is Right" are going to be looking for, and the article begins with a pretty comprehensive disambig. notice. -TPIRFanSteve 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know what? Forget waiting. According to this person's edit history, this is the only edit he's ever made to a TPIR article. I think the rest of us would agree that it shouldn't have happened, so I'm just gonna move it back now. -TPIRFanSteve 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of standarizing these as well. We should probably use (1956 US game show) and (1994 US game show) to avoid US bias. Oh, and agreed that the version with 6K episodes plus should get the direct un-DAB link, and retain the capital I in Is. —Twigboy 05:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When is it too much detail?

I have pruned out a lot of detail out of this article which is starting to work itself back in through well-intentioned edits. I am not the be-all and end-all, but I wanted to explain rationale in the hopes of garnering a consensus. As such, I am presenting the following suggestions, subject to hammering out by my fellow Wikipedians:

1. Names of contestants are irrelevant. Not only are the names without encyclopedic value, they are also unconfirmed spellings. Bowsley? Bowersley? Baughsleigh? (Perhaps she is Irish?) The possible variants, make it subject to interpretation, and therefore dilute the accuracy of the article.
2. Explain the essence of trivia. Trivia is, by nature, a small amount of insignificant information. The bullets in the trivia section should strike the average reader as interesting, perhaps mildly amusing. It is not interesting to read a paragraph-long account of what happened. Once a trivia item gets to be three sentences long, it's perhaps time to evaluate what is the core of what is being communicated.
3. Airdates. See above regarding a discussion about airdates of a nonhistorical nature (the airdate of the 5,000th episode is perhaps relevant, an error in gameplay on a certain date is not).
4. How many times X has happened. This is usually not even factual, as there has been discussion here regarding the fact that Bob Barker makes stats up sometimes. Also, there is apocryphal evidence of an exact showcase bid, but it can't be proven. Also, "on three or four occasions..." represents an unknown fact; therefore, it is not a fact. Plus, it dips into the realm of original research.
5. This article is not a linkfarm. I think that a link is earned, and if there is information that can be referenced for the article, then you've earned the link.

That's all for now, although I'm sure I'll be adding some as they come to me. Thoughts? —Twigboy 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here, and I've reverted most of the changes that were made today. I don't feel right messing with the links, as I work for Golden-Road.net, so I'll leave that to someone else. -TPIRFanSteve 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

I have moved the The Price Is Right article to The Price Is Right (1972 US version) because of the following reasons:

• It is confusing, as there are many versions.
• It is very short sighted to assume that everyone that reads Misplaced Pages is an American, so don't assume that the reader is an American. An added bonus is that American readers may find out about the other versions they didn't know existed.

Thank you. Kramden4700 01:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Well, I would have hoped to discuss this before the move was made. Even though there are several versions, I believe the current U.S. version deserves primacy simply based on its ubiquitousness. All other versions (except one) are spinoffs of this one, so those should be disambiguated. The original version, although popular in its own right, has been surpassed by the current version. Rather than list the entire rundown in a DAB line, the otheruses template would perhaps be more appropriate. Also, the "1972 version" is correct by standard, but it leads to "reambiguation," or confusion that this is not the current run of the program. Therefore, while technically correct, it should be moved back to avoid confusion. —Twigboy 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It would be a good idea to move the TPIR article to The Price Is Right (1972) since there is more than one and replace it with the disambigation page that was up last night. That seemed to work quite nicely here and it seemed to be a more sensible renaming and distribution of the articles that someone who would know next to nothing about the show would find useful, especially if they were not from the US. In fact I feel that having the US version of the show the most prominant violates the WP:NPOV guidelines, specifically violating the Nationalistic bias point. I love the irony of stating this fact on the Fourth of July, but the United States is not the centre of the universe and Americans don't own and operate Misplaced Pages. Consistant naming, and maintaining the NPOV are needed and the unsourced, poorly written TPIR related articles really need massive rewrites to give context and understanding for those who don't know the show instead of being some sort of fanboy heaven where violations of WP:OWN seem to be the norm. Rekarb Bob 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK please move the TPIR article to The Price Is Right (1972) then. Kramden4700 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Most people ARE going to search for the current American version over the various other incarnations. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rekarb Bob makes a very good point about how there are people who are not Americans who may be searching and how that Misplaced Pages is international which means there are billions more non-Americans than Americans which the WP:NPOV thing he mentioned about "nationalistic bias" makes sense. Kramden4700 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Doubt it. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think someone in England or Australia would be searching for the American version of The Price Is Right. It is short sighted to say that most people are searching for the American version unless you say most people in the United States are searching for the American version and last time I checked there were more non-American people in the world than Americans. Kramden4700 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I am in favour of anything that does not make American things the most important. I being British decided to look it up today to see something about our version and found the bloody American version being lord and master of all. That is quite wrong and bloody nationalistic. Bloody Americans think they own the internet, but it is not true! If you would read the WP:NPOV rulles you shall see you are in violation of them with since you insist that the bloody American programme is the only one anyone could be searching for. BLOODY STUPID! Ameri-CentricPatrol 00:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not saying no one here has a point, but Twigboy is right in saying that all other versions of the show are spin-offs of the current American versions (except for Bill Cullen's and the versions that were spin-offs of it). Furthermore, this doesn't seem to be the standard way to handle articles for prominent game shows with international versions. I looked up the pages for Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy!, Millionaire, and $ale of the Century. Wheel and $ale handles the issue the same way the Price article currently does -- a page for the original version (and it should be noted that for $ale, this is Australia) with links to a page for foreign incarnations. Millionaire has one overarching page with separate articles for both the original British version and the American version. Jeopardy! simply gives a brief listing of international versions within the American show's article. I'm not really sure why The Price Is Right should be so different from the rest of these. -TPIRFanSteve 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I do appreciate the interest taken in improving the article, but simply placing different tags like confusing and context without discussion is not much of a help. Seeing as the cleanup tag is already there, it would seem that the point of attention has already been made. There is an ongoing discussion on improving the article, and I think adding to the discussion is far more helpful that creating a bank of improvement tags at the top of the article. For those reasons, I am removing those tags, but please participate in the discussion. —Twigboy 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• To do
• To do, priority undefined