Talk:Card Sharks
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Card Sharks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Television B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Model
Does anyone know the last name of the model named Bettina who was on the earlier shows of Card Sharks?
Losing Ripoff?
Weren't the Losing Horns taken directly from The Price is Right?
- hardly a ripoff since they were from the same production company Lambertman 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither Bob Barker or Alex Trebek hosted Card Sharks, though Trebek was a contestant on CS in 1981, but not a host.
- Yes I know. I'm the one that was fixing it...before I got an account here. --Crinos43 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation link
Under "Misc. Show Information" is a link to STP, the disambiguation page. Where's it supposed to link? I'm not wholly sure. Rosuav (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Split the 2001-2002 version into it's own article?
It is my belief that since the 2001-2002 version of Card Sharks varied so wildly from the original versions (1978-81, and 1986), and since the 2001-2002 section is so poorly written and sourced, that it would thrive more as a disambiguated page, entitled Card Sharks (2001). Thank-You for your time in looking into this matter. Adg2k7 (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nah. It's a short section that doesn't have nearly enough info to warrant splitting....and the show doesn't warrant adding any more info than what's already there. Lambertman (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you think so. I say it's an extra, un-needed section that deserves it's own page, especially after seeing how much extra clutter it adds to the page. Removing this section and giving it it's own article would probably make it only a stub, but it could always be expanded, and furthermore, doing so would probably be a huge step towards trying to make the current Card Sharks article at least a GA on the quality scale. Adg2k7 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It really doesn't add much clutter. I have to agree with Lambertman here. The article would only be a stub, and any expansions would be too trivial to even add to the article in the first place. I say that the article should stay as it is. FamicomJL (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)