Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television Game Shows (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television Game Shows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of game shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as High-importance).
 

Controversies[edit]

ok so i stumbled upon the uk version and was interested in the list of controversies that had occured in its 12 year run, i preceded to my native who wants to be a millionaire page(ireland) and was pleased to see some juicy controversy on their also, despite it only being on the air for 2 seasons! so my question is this: in the american version which is surely one of the longest running ones, why isn't there a single controversy listed?! im sure there must have been dozens! Pinner458 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the really late reply, but we can't list controversies unless we find reliable sources to back it up. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2009 season[edit]

Can we revert back to the article listing the celebrity involved in the show, the 2009 primetime series has minimal information in it--Cooly123 18:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

No. All that's needed is a basic outline of what happened during the primetime revival, and the current article accomplishes that just fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. -- GSK (talkevidence) 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit between Disney and Celador[edit]

According to Hollywood Reporter, reported by Buzzerblog, the $270-million lawsuit went in favor of Celador, the production company of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, over Disney.
Link: http://buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com/the-final-answer-for-millionaire/ --Gh87 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 format/Buzzeblog references[edit]

I've rewritten the section detailing upcoming changes to the format. However, buzzerblog.flashgameshows.com is a fansite/blog not affiliated with the production of any game show and is not a verifiable source of information. The previously-linked blog post contains a large section detailing the author's opinion of the changes and does not contain a third-party independent source verifying the actual changes.

I've left most of the information about the possible upcoming changes in the article with citation needed tags until a verifiable source can be provided. If you have an acceptable source, please add it. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we add that if there is time left at the end of the show (although very rarely) an audience member will play for $1000. As of 12/7/2010 only 3 people have played for this with 2 people winning the question; the woman who lost received a Who Wants to be a Millionaire video game for the Wii system.--Cooly123 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That info is already in the article. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show)#Audience game Sottolacqua (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the correct studio name?[edit]

If the name of the studio where the show is taped is not "The ABC Television Center" despite the fact that the studio is identified with that name in the closing credits, then what is the correct name? I need to know so that I can correctly name the studio without risk of that name being deleted.

- Seth Allen 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethAllen623 (talkcontribs)

I believe the right studio might be Prospect Studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.223.170 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be Prospect Studios because Millionaire is filmed in New York City, not Los Angeles. --GSK 02:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.wwtbam.biz as a reference[edit]

I removed the reference to wwtbam.biz since it appears to be a fansite started by a former contestant and not an official source. If there are any official sources or other verifiable data please add it in place of the removed reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to new title Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)



Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show)Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) – Use U.S. with periods, see WP:TV-NC#Additional disambiguation.Thank You! Cvhcsee (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. MoS says to use full stops for US articles. Worth noting, however, that the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style has deprecated this usage -- hopefully other American style guides will follow their lead, but until that time we're stuck with using "U.S.". Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I consider it part of an English-language rule that U.S. should be written with full stops. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), January 18, 2012. —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 19 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Production in infobox[edit]

Musdan77, The way the credits have been listed in the infobox is an accurate rendition of the way they are listed on the show. If you change that on the basis of your subjective judgment that it's "unnecessarily repetitive," you're introducing inaccuracy into the article. JTRH (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In no way does it make it any less accurate. But leaving it the way it was does go against MOS guideline of no redundant sub-headings – which is what these would be considered (though I don't think making sub-headings in an infobox is acceptable anyway). If they were actual parameters, it would not be an issue. Maybe you can try to make that happen. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If the show makes a distinction between "executive producer" and "co-executive producer," or between "producer" and "supervising producer," then how does lumping them all under the titles of EP or producer not make it less accurate? E.g., Meredith Vieira is not one of the "executive producers." She's one of the "co-executive producers." So it's not accurate to call her an executive producer. It's not the same thing. If it's a different title, it's not a redundant sub-heading, and there are plenty of sub-headings in article boxes like these (look at the cast credits on Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) for an example). If you want to get rid of the sub-headings, then the people whose exact title is not "executive producer" or "producer" should not be included, but then you're leaving out a lot of relevant, accurate information in favor of an arbitrary judgment about the aesthetic appearance of the infobox.
I don't need to "try to make" anything happen. The box is accurate as it is with the additional titles specified, there is no reason to change it, and I don't have to justify accuracy, unless you're taking the position that MOS requires simplicity at the expense of accuracy?JTRH (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who is "lumping them all under the titles," the user who added the sub-headings was in essence putting them under those headings. All I was doing was removing the redundancy of producer, producer, producer. And it did not take away from the meaning. If you think that having sub-headings is not accurate then they shouldn't be like the way they are.
Now, let's look at the real underlying issue, which is the infobox itself. The general consensus in the infobox talk pages is that a great many article infoboxes are much longer than they should be – mainly because they contain things that don't belong. An infobox is supposed to be a short summary of the general article. Not every credit that a TV show has or had goes in the infobox. Basically, only the actual value that goes with the parameter should go there. Year ranges after names aren't really supposed to be in infoboxes, but making them small (< small >) at least can make the infobox not quite as long (and it's what's called compromise). And adding anything like sub-headings don't belong. But, when I removed those and then the editor who originally added them, put them back, I didn't just revert, I made a compromise (again). And that's what editors are supposed to do. That's part of consensus – not just thinking that your way is the only way.
What could be done with the issue at hand (short of adding new parameters) is put something like, "for co-executive producers, see Production section", and if it's not important enough to be in the main article, then it apparently isn't relevant enough to be in the infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I personally would be perfectly happy to have, for example, the "executive producer" listing limited to people who are actually credited as executive producer (not co- or something else), and I certainly agree that the entire credit roll doesn't need to be listed in the infobox (or the article itself, for that matter). But if the show chooses to have different categories/ranks in its credits (executive, co-executive, producer, supervising, etc.) and all of those people are going to be listed, then they should be listed the way the show does it.
If year ranges aren't supposed to be listed in infoboxes, then the possibilities are, for example, that either the infobox lists Regis Philbin and Meredith Vieira as both hosting the show without any kind of chronological reference(which makes it look like they're both doing it now) or it doesn't list Regis at all because he's not the current host. JTRH (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
CONFLICT RESOLVED: The infobox has been reduced to something more concise. To ensure that the current hosts, networks, companies, producers, etc. are listed in conjunction with their predecessors, the year ranges have been retained but now appear small (so as to keep the infobox itself from appearing extremely long). And co-executive producer and supervising producer credits have been removed entirely, since their presence would require sub-headings, which are almost always forbidden in articles. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, December 10, 2012, 02:39 UTC.

Sam Murray[edit]

I made a revision to add Sam Murray's name to the section on the Million Dollar Tournament of Ten, & cited another part of this article as my resource. Next, someone else pops up and changes it to a link for "Sam Murray". If it isn't cited, it isn't encyclopedic. Please explain. Newellington (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This article will be reviewed within 7 days, and just a note to the nominator, I do my review with a "main list" with the title Review and then separate sections for prose and source reviews. Let's have fun! Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 02:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this one on; please, take your time as it is a longer article and I have another article being reviewed at the moment. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: By the way, I do my reviews in a style with a "main review" then with prose and source separate reviews (if necessary) (Here is a good example.)
Usually, I finish in 3-4 days, but I have tommorow off for a school day, so I'll probably get the review done by tommorow. ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 22:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Main Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. The prose doesn't veer off topic, there are no copyright issues, and no glaring mistakes in the prose (more in-depth check will be done in the prose review below)
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article from a first glance follows The Manual of Style and the lead, layout, etc. are all suitable. Also, there aren't any "pigeon words" that I clearly see.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. From a first look, all sentences/paragraphs are relevantly sourced. More details in source review. No mistakes in how the article is referenced.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. All prose is suitably referenced.
2c. it contains no original research. There are no paragraphs/sentences that are not sourced aka are original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Again, the article is to the point, and covers the aspects that it should cover.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article is focused, with no "unnecessary detail."
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. The article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars that I've seen.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. All pictures are tagged correctly for copyright status,
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant to each section, there are plenty to go around. Captions are also relavent.
7. Overall assessment. Article is now on hold. Please see comments in prose review. Good job! Pass. Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you correct what I noted, use YesY. However, if you think it can only be somewhat corrected use YesY. Lastly, if it can't be corrected/shouldn't be corrected use N. Place 1 out of these 3 after the note. You do not need to respond to comments that say Good.

  • For example: Make the lead shorter. YesY Done. -sign- OR YesY Partly done. -insert text- OR N Not done. -insert text-

ACTUAL PROSE REVIEW BEGINS HERE

  • Lead: Good. It sums up the article and its length is appropriate.
  • Gameplay Section
"The main game is a quiz competition wherein the goal is to correctly answer a series of consecutive multiple-choice questions." Is main needed?
YesY Done. --SethAllen623 (talk) 14:07, October 16, 2014 (UTC)
"Contestants were originally faced with fifteen questions of increasing difficulty, but since the format was overhauled in 2010, the contestants are faced with fourteen questions of random difficulty, distributed into two rounds." Maybe say "...however since then the format the format was overhauled in 2010 and the contestants are now faced with only fourteen questions....."
YesY Done. --SethAllen623 (talk) 14:07, October 16, 2014 (UTC)
(Payout structure, lifeline, and top prize winners' subsections have no errors)
  • Personnel Section No problems. Good.
  • Production Section No problems. Good.
  • Broadcast History Section No problems. Fantastic! (You really worked hard to fix prose mistakes! I applaud you on your effort!)
  • Special edition Section Dang, no problems. Great!
  • Reception section NO PROBLEMS!
Excellent, thank you Seth. I came here to get to fixing these issues as I've been in school all day, but I see I've been beaten to it (which certainly is not a bad thing). Looks like it's Yes check.svg Done! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bentvfan54321: @SethAllen623: Great job, Seth and Bentvfan. The article is now passed (officially GA). Congrats! Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I commend you and you are a very skillful editor. The article is on hold while I wait for you to fix the errors I stated. (if needed) Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 02:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Source Review[edit]

Edit Needed in the Payout Amounts[edit]

I made this change myself but someone felt the need to undo them because they feel that they are correct, which they are not. The first 5 questions were in increments of $100, (100, 200, 300, 500, & then 1,000). The first "milestone" level was $1,000. They weren't actual milestones, they were just called that.

The second "milestone" was $32,000. The second level that a contestant could reach where they would be safe, keeping that amount of money if they were to miss the next question. The next questions were 64,000, 125,000, 250,00, 500,000 and 1,000,000.

I may not be entirely confident on what they were called, but I am 100% confident on what the actual levels were. Please refer to the wiki article for the versions of the game at the Disney Parks. I remember them being EXACTLY as the TV game was, only they did not pay out money. The dollar increments were the same, but players earned points. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Increments of $100 would be 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500. Additionally, increments have nothing to do with milestones, so I don't know what you want changed there, but the article is correct as it is now. I assume good faith and that you have merely misread and misinterpreted the information, but it is correct as stands. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not misread it. For the sake of the debate, let's just refer to the milestones as the "safe points." The point that I am trying to make is that the second safe point was $32,000, not $64,000 as it is listed. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And if you need proof that I am correct on that the $32,000 dollar question which is the 10th of the 15 questions and is the second safe point in the game, either go to this link or search "John Carpenter - Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Complete Video". He was the first million dollar winner. And at the 1:30 mark, the money tree is shown to the TV audience, with the $32,000 amount being the second safe point. I won't bother to make the correction. I will simply give you the opportunity to correct it back. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDvNoLboqQM It should be proof enough. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But the paragraph is referring to INCREMENTS, NOT MILESTONES, which is why the article says what it says. @SethAllen623:, I am correct, right? Or am I blind as a bat and am missing something? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Right. And @Aidensdaddy2k9:, you stop warring with the other editors about this. Earlier in the article, it is stated clearly, "Before 2010, upon correctly answering questions five and ten, the contestants were guaranteed at least the amount of prize money associated with that level." This is enough to infer to the reader where the milestones were in the classic and clock formats. Wikipedia articles are best read thoroughly.--SethAllen623 (talk)00:55, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Where it says ".. then from $500 to $64,000 with the dollar value for each new question being double that of the one before it, and finally from $125,000 to $1,000,000 with the dollar values doubling for each new question." it should read "from $500 to $32,000 with the dollar value for each new question being double that of the one before it, and finally from $64,000 to $1,000,000....." The current sentence alludes to the middle level of questions from the 5th to the 10th is that the amounts are from $500 to $64,000. But that is incorrect. Now I will admit that I was incorrect initially when I changed the other sentence ".. first going from $100 to $300 in increments" to $400. I was mistaken there. But I know that I am correct with the other sentence. They should read "from $500 to $32,000" and "from $64,000 to $1,000,000. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand your confusion. However, the sentence talks about the STRUCTURE OF THE MONEY TREE, NOT the milestones on the money tree. It talks about the values in the tree doubling from $500 to $64,000, and they do ($500, $1,000, $2,000, $4,000, $8,000, $16,000, $32,000 and $64,000). To change this from $64,000 to $32,000 would mean the sentence would imply that the tree doubles starting at $64,000, meaning it would continue to $128,000, $256,000, $512,000 and $1,024,000. And obviously, that is incorrect. I'm sure this probably does not answer your question, but I believe I've done everything I can to make my case. Normally, I wouldn't be too concerned with something like this, but this is a Good Article, and as such, it cannot contain any factual errors. Anyway, I hope you can see what I mean and that you continue to contribute, but I also hope you can see that your edit was just an honest mistake (and every editor, including me, is not infallible and makes plenty of mistakes). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I was cut off by an edit conflict, but thanks for the quick responses. I appreciate your acknowledgement that the article is fine as is.Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I had previously responded, stating that I was not confused, and that its just an "agree to disagree" scenario, that I was just going to let it go.

But my brain wasn't ready to do that just yet. I rolled it over a few times, and after careful review, I do now see my mistake and that yes you are correct. I even saw the fallacy in my own argument. Yes, the dollar amounts do double from $500 to $64,000 and then again from $125,000 to the million. The sentence which is indeed correct is simply implying that the amounts double from the previous amount, and in which they do not between $64,000 and $125,000. Here I was over thinking it, and trying to argue that the sentence was supposed to imply what is between the milestones. And I was forgetting the fact that I was including the $500 amount, which is before the first milestone question. I was not really confused per say, I was over thinking it. Okay, I was confused. And yes, you are correct. My apologies. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@SethAllen623:, I feel that "warring" is kind of a harsh word. Warring would've been if we were throwing insults or harsh language. It was a strong debate where I was under the incorrect assumption on my part that I was right. And for a time, I seriously thought I was and was just trying to defend it. But I have conceded, seeing that I was indeed wrong. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)