Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bob Barker episodes rerun in the fall?[edit]

A rumor has stated that in the fall, when barker retires, a rerun of price with barker on the weekends. 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my, this needs help![edit]

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 [1].
    • 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. [[Briguy52748 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]]
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. [[Briguy52748 13:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]]
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? [[Briguy52748 14:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]]
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 " 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)


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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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, so I'll leave that to someone else. -TPIRFanSteve 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I attempted some clean up, writing more general descriptions of some sections and creating main articles for those who want more specific information on them. I hope that I wrote them in a way that someone who has no idea about the show can understand, leaving the detailed descriptions, with things like exact prize amounts, to the main articles. Hopefully together we can all fix this albatross. Buckner 1986 07:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You have done a good job so far, but a thorough and systematic de-crufting is really needed for most of the TPIR related articles. Rekarb Bob 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, here I go again.

Now I've noticed that there are seperate articles for various sections of the show (such as Contestants' Row, Showcase Showdown (The Price Is Right (US)), etc). If my memory serves correctly, the UK and Australian Price is Right also had these but with slight differences.

How about we adjust most of the articles so that they're more universal and not just specific to the American version? I mean, even adding a small sentence would work. That and so we can make the Showcase Showdown article name be a few characters shorter... --TonicBH 12:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing link?[edit]

In one of the links at the bottom, I clicked on it and it took me to a blank page. [2] Is this happening to everyone or is my computer whacked? 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC), compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing in this article is fine and up to GA standards
2. Factually accurate?: For an article this long, In text citations are needed badly. considering there are no general references, they are manditory. Citation is needed throughout the article (there are only 8 instances already)
3. Broad in coverage?: This article thoroughly covers the topic at hand.
4. Neutral point of view?: It would be hard to give this article a bias unless it was written by one of bob barker's rabid fans. This article is fine for NPOV.
5. Article stability? This article is stable
6. Images?: many of the images require fair use rationales which are not present.
Other Notes: If it weren't for the fair use issues with the images, I would nominate this as an unreferenced GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


I looked online to find the Wardrobe Malfunction, and got nothing except this: (censored). There was an uncensored, but removed from Youtube:

The removed video was stolen from, where it is still available for download. -TPIRFanSteve 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Do any of you think an infobox for all pricing game articles is a good idea? --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not right now -- there isn't concrete data on the premieres and retirements of many of the games, which I would assume is what you'd want for this sort of thing. Such information may be coming in the near future, though. -TPIRFanSteve 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reruns (or lack thereof)[edit]

Just wanted to double-check--has it been definitely confirmed that Les Moonves is the reason why GSN does not air reruns of TPiR? SamJ93 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

TPIR music cues in Concentration (1970s)[edit]

I read the article, and it said that 1970s version of Concentration played some music cues that were also played in The Price is Right. Ones I heard were played in Concentration were (what fans called it) "Splendido" (usually used for furniture showcases) and "Starcrossed" (played for some prizes and showcases). Does anyone know which show played these music cues first? Was either TPIR or "Concentration" first to play them? --Gh87 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1976 Family Feud theme in TPIR as car cue[edit]

I know that the 1976 theme of Family Feud was heard as the car cue in TPIR from 1976 to 1980s. Does anyone know which show play the theme first? --Gh87 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though Feud played the actual theme first, it was a more elaborate version of a cue on TPIR. So, in actuality, TPIR played it first. Green Lantern

There is going to be a new host for The Price is Right, but, is the set going to be rennovated?[edit]

Well, Bob Barker is retiring from the Price is Right, and some celebs are trying out to be the host for the Price is Right. But there's one little question.

"Is the set going to be rennovated?".

Rumors think that when the new host for the price is right comes in, the set shall be revamped. Others say, keep the current set. Here's what i think if, the price is right got a new set when the new host was chosen.

  • Contestants Row be computerised (meaning the podiums will be four video screens, each with a color background, the font shall be impact font)
  • Add a video wall, next to the turntable.
  • Replace the lights on the big doors with LED lights.
  • Cliffhangers yodel music remastered.
  • Electronic Cash Register for Grocery Game
  • Have a "NO" graphic on one of the screens for Three Strikes for a wrong position.
  • E-Check for Check Game
  • Confetti Dropping after a Double Showcase Win

What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlairsvilleHighSchool (talkcontribs) 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think these are "rumors" so much as "stuff you thought up yourself." To the best of my knowledge, nothing that you've mentioned here is being contemplated by anyone who works at the show. -TPIRFanSteve 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

After Review, CBS requested, "don't change the set or the show".

You make it sound like the staff wanted to change things, which is an absurd notion; Roger has been one of the major proponents over the years of not changing things.
Personally, I don't think any of what either of you has posted here is based in reality. -TPIRFanSteve 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
And just imagine how often they've been quoted by now. Lambertman 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CBS and Kennedy scheduling issues[edit]

CBS forbade stations from running (Tom Kennedy's version) before 6 p.m

I'm almost positive WTHI in Terre Haute aired it at 5. Lambertman 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Barker Episode?[edit]

Well, the 35th season looks like its coming to an end. According to , the last scheduled airdate (currently) is March 2nd. Is this the last episode? I'd imagine they'd do something special for the final Bob Barker episode (and the end of a legacy, arguable), and I need to tape it. But the article on Bob Barker says he'll be retiring June 2007. Does anyone know anything about the last episode? PolarisSLBM 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The schedule simply hasn't been updated recently. Except for one rerun week in March and possibly another in April, new shows will be airing until the middle of June, just like usual. -TPIRFanSteve 03:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts about the show being medicinal[edit]

I think it's more then worth mentioning somewhere about the show's healing powers as explained by Dane Cook. At the very least it should be mentioned somewhere that most people who watch the show are watching it when they stay home because of a small illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair-use images[edit]

There are currently 14 images, none of which have fair-use rationale for being used in this particular article. This is a major obstacle in the way of promoting this to GA status. Please review all images and remove the ones that don't apply. —Twigboy 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)