Talk:The Price Is Right/Archive 1


 * This article has recently been posted on fark.com. Please watch out for any trolls that may target this article. 17:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Clean up of Talk:The Price is Right
This talk page is out of date! Let's make The Price is Right a great page! If I clean up anything by mistake, just copy it back from the page history. And please use &#58; &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; to sign and date your comments. Plinko 15:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed out of date talk. Plinko 15:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I applaud your initiative, but it seems to be convention to move old talk to an archive and then link the archive.  I suppose you can go through history if you really want to see archived talk, but you might want to consider having a prominently-linked archive just so people don't feel like their comments have gotten suppressed - PhilipR 19:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Restored talk archive deleted on 15:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC). Some of the discussion carried out today without the benefit of the discussions below. &mdash;Twigboy 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to The Price is Right
Let's rearrange the main page sections to have the Overview first: Overview > 1956 Show > 1972 Show > New Life in Primetime. Plinko 15:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Reorganized page outline. Plinko 05:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Restored talk archive
From the main page:
 * (Editor's note: there is no such game as "10 Questions."  Perhaps the person who wrote this was thinking of "Ten Chances.")

Removed because--if it's wrong, it's wrong. Change it. There are no designated editors here; we designate ourselves editor by clicking "edit text of this page." :-) --KQ 09:29 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Why did you remove


 * More commercials per hour, leaving less time for longer games.

As a Fremantle criticism?

The Price is Right page is getting unwieldy!
The page The Price is Right is becoming difficult to maintain. Since there were nearly half a dozen incarnations of the show in the United States alone, any elaboration specific to the most widely known 1972 daily version has to be prefaced by 'the 1972 version...'.

Is it time to make The Price is Right a disambiguation page of sorts and direct it to other pages, like:
 * The Price is Right (1956)
 * The Price is Right (1972 daily)
 * The Price is Right (1972 weekly)
 * The Nighttime Price is Right (1986)
 * The Nighttime Price is Right (1994)
 * The Price is Right (1981 Britian)

...and so on? (The above is just an idea of the page structure, and probably isn't 100% accurate.) I'm thinking of less of just a list and more of the contents of the 'Overview' section, linked to the individual shows. As it is, there is a lot to say about any number of these versions, but it will be impossible to elaborate too deeply, soon, with the length this document is liable to become.

So, questions. 1. Should the page be broken into smaller pages, by show, or left how it is? 2. If it should be broken up, what's the best way to differentiate the shows' entries?

Skybunny 21:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the length of the article and what to do with it:

I could see giving the 1950s-60s Bill Cullen version and any foreign versions of the show their own pages, but don't give separate pages to any of the post-1972 syndicated versions. The format of those shows didn't stray too far from the daytime show; the only difference being that they were 30 minutes long and there was no Showcase Showdown. (OK, the 1994 version had a Showdown and a one-player Showcase, but it was too short-lived -- only lasting half a season -- to justify little more than a mention on the main page.)

In my mind, most people are looking for the current version of the show when they're searching for "The Price is Right."

Yes, how about only one page for all older incarnations of the show? And one page for the current show, one page for pricing games.

Changes made
I think I've come up with a reasonable middle ground, now. TPIR 1956 is a separate article, now. The rest of the other minor variations of the show have its own article section, now, which can be expanded safely without confusion. The rest is all about 1972 now.

Hi, 12.216.17.229: Thanks for the suggestion. If you do read this, you may want to consider getting yourself a wiki login and password. I see you've done lots of article contributions. You'll probably find the 'watchlist' a handy feature to keep track of articles you like to contribute to, and people can respond to what you do on your own discussion page. All in all, it tends to make wiki life a little easier. Good luck, either way.

Skybunny 23:42, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pricing Game Section
I've got a question about the pricing game section... one of the external links (GScentral) has a lot of the starting dates for pricing games... where exactly would I put those? Also, should the pricing games section be divided into retired and currently played games? It's already unwieldy as is, and there's a lot of them missing (a bunch of retired ones, really). Mo0 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * GoldenRoad.net's FAQ has a more accurate list of when each game premiered. As for the pricing games, I'd wait until the active games are completed before adding any more retired ones. Right now the only active games that don't have descriptions are: Master Key, On the Spot, Poker Game, Secret "X", Side by Side, Step Up, Swap Meet, Switch?, Time is Money, and 2 For the Price of 1. But with 70+ games in the rotation and almost 100 games having been played in the history of the show, I realize that this section is getting long. Iowahwyman 01:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll get cracking on those tomorrow. I guess adding just a temporary list of which games are retired and which aren't wouldn't be a bad place to start on dividing them, would it? Mo0 09:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probability
“Questions of strategy natuarlly arise from this situation: When should you choose to spin again?”

I’d like to see someone well-versed in probability perform a more rigorous analysis. For example, assuming that the number you land on is random and assuming my calculations are correct (a big assumption), if the first spinner gets 60c in his first spin, he wins 9% of the time by staying and 16% of the time by spinning again, neglecting tying situations. I’m not sure at all about these numbers, though, which is why I ask someone more experienced for help.