Talk:One Bid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Left and Right[edit]

Is the left and right mentioned stage left and stage right or audience left or audience right? Buckner 1986 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Does anyone know if the winning bidder gets to keep the prize of bidding (or cash value)?

As per Bob at the top of every episode: "And we will present that prize to the one of you four who bids nearest to the retail price without going over." -TPIRFanSteve 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section[edit]

I remember one episode where all of the contestants overbid themselves by one dollar. (If red bid 1 dollar, blue would bid 2, yellow 3 and green 4) I don't remember when it aired and how much was it, but I do know that it happened. I have posted this several times, and every time it's taken away. If I need proof, then the other 3 trivia topics there also need proof and need to be taken out.

I keep taking it out because you keep claiming it's the only time it ever happened. It isn't. Barker declares it to be the first time every time it occurs. -TPIRFanSteve 02:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New header[edit]

I want to change the header to better reflect the topic, but I'm torn on whether it works on not - I figure it's best to work on it together. The basic principle in my mind is that if the article is "contestants row", the article ought to lead with what Contestant's Row actually is (the row), with a subsequent mentioning that One-bid is often refered to as this. But my problem is that it makes it so the article, about One-bid, seems out of place. My alternate suggestion is that this article ought to be moved to One-bid, with this page redirecting there, since that's the title of the game, and unambiguous. In that article, we could put "the game is sometimes also unofficially referred to as Contestant's Row, which is actually the name of the row of four seats...." :

Contestants' Row is a row of four seats in the front row of the audience of the television game show The Price Is Right. Contesants involved in the One-bid four-player qualifying game (sometimes unofficially also referred to as "Contestants' Row") stand in front of these seats where four microphones are placed for them, and four display screens sit to record their bids. Those contestants who do not win the One-bid game wait in these seats until the next round. Frequently, this round is be introduced by the host with the phrase "the next item up for bids".

TheHYPO 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

If anyone feels like doing some work, this is a list of articles still linking to Contestants' Row and not here to One Bid TheHYPO 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to One Bid[edit]

I was on a bit of a wikibreak when Contestants' Row moved to One Bid. I understand that One Bid is the official title, but I'm a bit conflicted about making that the article title. Per WP:NAME, "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Then it says that the policy is not set in stone, to bring us back to the starting point. I pulled a few examples, two which use a common name for the article and two that use an official name:

I'm inclined to think that Contestants' Row is more on par with Whistler's Mother and Rhode Island than One Bid is with the others. In this case, the common name is not incorrect, as it is the one that is more frequently encountered by the public. I think that One Bid belongs in the article, particularly with the heritage to the original show, but not as the article name. Thoughts?—Twigboy 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants' Row is the name of a row on the stage of Price is Right. I began rewriting the article under that title and quickly found that it was the stupidest way to write it. Contestants' Row is something completely different than One Bid, and frankly, While "One Bid" may not be that common a name, I don't think people think that "contestants' row" is the name of the bidding game either. I think they just don't think the bidding game has a name.
The difference with your stated examples is that you can write the intros:
Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother, famous under its colloquial name Whistler's Mother...
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI or MI), more commonly known as a heart attack...
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, usually called simply Rhode Island ...
In this case, Contestants' Row is not the name of the game - it's the name of something else (the row). Actually, I just checked - I copied my attempted new intro above on this very talk page and you can see that trying to write the article as if it's about Contestants' Row is conterproductive because you must first write it as if it's about the actual row, since that is what "Contestants' Row" actually refers to. Without first explaining the game itself, that makes it hard to write that "contestants' row is there for players of this game which will be explained in a minute". If ANYTHING was to go in Contestants' Row, other than a redirect to One Bid, it ought not be the One Bid game, but an actual article noting that CR is the 4 seats used to play One Bid. It is also commonly mistakenly used to refer to the game One Bid, with the mention of "One Bid" being a link to this page for the game.
An analagous situation to me would be something like... The A-10 Thunderbolt II which, most common people might know as the "warthog" (as mentioned in the article, "However, the A-10 is more commonly known as Warthog or simply Hog."). However, since this is not the actual name of the plane (full or shortened), but the name of something else, Warthog simply has a "if you're looking for" tag at the top and redirects to the actual name of the plane. However, Wikipedia policy is not to point out other articles to backup your arguments - Wikipedia is publicly edited, and as such, there is no guarantee that any of the articles either of us has mentioned jives with what "should" be done.
If the way you suggest were the right way, Showcase Showdown ought to be redirected to "The Big Wheel", but since the Wheel isn't the name of the game, but simply a prop, this isn't the case. It's pretty much the same as One Bid to me. TheHYPO 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPIRFanSteve...[edit]

Has been reported to the AN/I board over his continued vandalism of this article, as well as the retired pricing games one also. I'm sure people are sick of him removing the tags, and his bad faith edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. This article has been on my watchlist for quite some time, and I have seen no vandalism by TPIRFanSteve, other than boldly removing tags. Which, while it may be unpalatable to some, is not vandalism. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you mention that, because there wasn't word one from him in this discussion page. He doesn't know how to assume good faith. That's the issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but regardless of whether he does so or not, you should assume good faith towards him. Helps keep things friendly and productive around here, you know. Revert warring is never acceptable, and WP:3RR violations are, in my experience, the single biggest cause of contributors in otherwise good standing being blocked. So just don't do it.
Now, as to the issue here, I don't really have a preference one way or the other. However, since you two obviously do to the extent that you're willing to spend time flipping it back and forth, I've protected the article in an effort to get you to discuss it in a civil manner and work out the discussion. I've set the protection to expire on May 7, and I don't want to have to lengthen it because this issue hasn't been resolved.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this argument crap.[edit]

In my opinion,

a) Notability is established in this article in the fact that One Bid is a qualifying game played 6 times a show, every show, 5 days a week, on a highly rated network game show, and has been an element of every version of the show since the original. It would be ideal to have some other citations to show it's been recognized outside of the show itself, but I believe sufficient notability has been met, and the tag needn't be there.

b) Original research. If you are read the tag, it says "See talk page for details." If you are not going to either tag with [original research?] or start a talk page section explaining what you believe is original research (or be more specific by tagging only the relevant sections), then I don't believe the tag should stand

c) I think this article does need more citations. I think almost every article on wikipedia needs more citations than are currently there. However, since there isn't even a single {{Fact}} tag on the article, I don't see what specific information is felt to be requiring citation. As I understand it, Wikipedia practice allows primary sources (in this case, the show itself) to act as a source for anything relevant to rules and how the game is played and what happens. So if there are major uncorroborated facts in the article, you ought to tag them specifically to justify a refimprove banner tag

d) The merge discussion seems to have been abandonned. I believe it should be appropriately revived and an actual pro/con vote be taken, or else abandon the merge tag. I see no evidence of support from the discussion linked to in the tag.

This is my opinion as to how the tags should be dealt with. It is not sufficient to just say "original research exists in this article so I'm going to slap a tag at the top." (for example). These tags should be supported by specific explainations or pointers to actual problematic content unless the entire article really needs citing or is original research, which I don't find to be the case here. TheHYPO (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a clear consensus against merging, since I didn't really see anyone really in favor of the merge on Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). So I removed that tag. As for (c), a "needs references" tag is typically used instead of {{fact}} tags, when such tags would be too numerous. Basically "this whole thing needs references". Basically, anything that could lead to a reader going "Oh yeah? Prove it" needs a ref. After dealing with refs for a while you get the hang of knowing what needs one and what doesn't.
And remember, we can use actual episodes as references. (The editors on the Family Guy articles do this regularly). Drew referred to it as "one bid" just today (May 1). Other reliable sources include magazine articles about the show, and even John Sly's liner notes from the TPIR DVD set. The only thing we have to avoid is self-published sources, like fan sites or forum posts (which means that Joe Capitano's recaps at G-R.net are out, unfortunately). Further information about what can and can't be used is at WP:RS.
Instead of edit warring over the tags, let's just resolve the issues they bring up and then the issue will be moot. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding notability, I think that refers to what notability it has outside the show, but that is definitely met. There was a Family Guy reference brought up on G-R.net where Lois was watching a playing of One Bid with one of the contestants reacting angrily due to being $1-upped. If we could find out which FG episode that was, I think that would satisfy the notability requirement. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that I don't see this "mass" needs citation problem. At least a good portion of the article is primary source - comes directly from the show. I agree that the history section could use citation and the strategy section has some original research, but that's why I said specific sections that are the main issue should be tagged, not the whole article blindly. I disagree with your theory that anything that could lead a reader to say "oh yeah?" needs a tag, as the world is full of readers, and almost every sentence on wikipedia will cause SOMEONE to say "oh yeah?" I've been editing long enough to know what needs citing, but I don't think almost everything in this article needs it. TV protocal on wikipedia is that primary sources are rarely cited for generalities (IE: a movie article doesn't cite the movie, and a TV show article rarely cites episode the show (unless there is a fact that is specific and comes only from one episode -If you look at an article like Desperate Housewives#Cast and characters, none of the character section is cited, as it's simply primary information; whereas the following "casting" section is well documented because it's external information.
In the same way, I don't believe any of the common procedures on air require citation in this article. The only facts in the Gameplay section that I'd argue might need citing are that "The first four contestants may stand in any order they work out amongst themselves", which is not commonly seen on the show, and the eligability rule at the end of the section. Everything else stands on primary source to me (though I'd like to clean it up a bit when the protection is lifted". As such, I again believe that it would be better to put a citation tag with regard to the history section where there is far more requiring citation, and simply fact tag the aforementioned two facts. Similarly, the original research really only pertains to the strategy section. Having both tags on the top of the article, imo, serves to imply that even the gameplay is misrepresented in this article, which isn't really true, as the rules section is for the most part an acurate description. I would love to be able to cite this stuff, but frankly I have no source of citation.
While notability is ideally outside of the show, I would argue that there is plenty of room for something so notable within a show that it doesn't need to be referenced by family guy (or in the papers) to merit being notable. That said, as you point out there is an external reference here. The episode in question is The Fat Guy Strangler in which Lois watches a One Bid round for a Dinette set, in which one contestant bids 780 and the next (after asking what the last bid was) bids 781. The previous contestant then exclaims "fuck you". There are only three bidders in the sequence, though it's not implied or denied that the third bidder is the final one. When the article is unprotected, it can be added to address the notability. TheHYPO (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what needs to be cited isn't my theory, it's policy: WP:V, which says that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I agree, I don't think we really need to reference the rules of One Bid, since they're repeated at the top of each show, and anyone could verify them just by tuning in at 11AM and watching the host recite them. Not sure of what else in the article might need a reference, but anything likely to be challenge should provide a source so readers can verify the information for themselves. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season 37 "Play Along"[edit]

In a similar manner to "play alongs" of the past, it seems that Season 37 has a new kind of "Play Along" in place that is based on One Bid, with home contestants competing for One bid-style prizes. How best could this knowledge be incorporated into the article?—68.10.100.47 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new game is not similar to the Play Along feature of the past. Play Alongs in the 80s featured an at-home contestant who sent in a post card and would win the same prize the on-stage contestant won.
This new contest is a telephone game and uses a separate prize not featured in the day's gameplay. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Onebidseason37.jpg[edit]

The image File:Onebidseason37.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game and 95 other pages, including this one, up for deletion[edit]

FYI. Ikip (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Bid&oldid=326224393"