Talk:Wheel of Fortune (U.S. network game show)/Archive 1

Merged

As the author of the page, I would prefer that it not be merged. I created it because going back and forth between descriptions of the daytime and nighttime versions on the main article page added a great deal of bulk, and it didn't flow well. Thanks.--JTRH 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More Info

Hi - I have moved more daytime information from the main "Wheel" page to this page, which should make this more comprehensive and get rid of some of the bulk in the main article.

65.27.233.132 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)DAP

Photo

I added {{reqphoto}} in this talk page because this article needs one to reduce some imaginative possibilities from every reader online. --Gh87 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.JTRH 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my comment for you: "I added this tag for article improvement request." --Gh87 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune on GSN

I wonder why WOF is not on GSN anymore, does Pat have a problem with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.70.72 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know, Pat had nothing to do with the contract not being renewed. JTRH 00:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just out of the rotation for now. Sony owns both GSN and Wheel of Fortune. Calliaume 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1983 nighttime wheel on GSN

Was the 1983 NIGHTTIME Wheel ever shown on GSN, I just don't recall it. --24.228.70.72 01:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)nextbarker

Chuck Woolery's knack for spinning $1000 spaces for the "final spin"

As a teenager I watched WOF with Chuck Woolery every morning during summer vacation for years, and I would like to know if anyone else ever noticed that for the shortened final round, Chuck had an unbelievable ability to hit the top money space most times when he gave the wheel a "final spin". Did he stick around after taping practicing that? It made me believe that the wheel was rigged with controls so the director could get the most exciting ups and downs for the show.

Fair use rationale for Image:$2000 Space.jpg

Image:$2000 Space.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:$2000 Space.jpg

Image:$2000 Space.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bob Goen.jpg

Image:Bob Goen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bob Goen.jpg

Image:Bob Goen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bob Goen.jpg

Image:Bob Goen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bob Goen.jpg

Image:Bob Goen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Woolery's 1980 absence

I'm not reverting the statement that was inserted, but I'm not sure it's (a) verifiable if it's only been reported on one fan site (which doesn't give its source), and (b) relevant to an encyclopedia page about the show even if it is true. Would the author please consider removing? It's your call as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. JTRH 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. I suggest e-mailing David Livingston about that statement, more clarification, and seeing where he got that information. Because yes, I've noticed that only his website seems to have that as the reason for Woolery's departure at the time. FamicomJL 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I kinda figured it might get deleted, and I won't try to restore it. But at the time, it jumped off the page at me, and the idea that this belonged on Wikipedia just flashed through my brain. Yes, I'm still learning about what is and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. --JoBrLa 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article now says that Woolery took this leave of absence when he "became sick". What was he ill with? --JoBrLa 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that in the article, but if it's there, delete it. The only thing Chuckster was sick of....was Merv. Lambertman 15:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It said "Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek filled in for Chuck Woolery during an episode in 1980, when he reportedly became sick." I'm going to delete it for three reasons: (1) The sentence is technically incorrect, since Alex wasn't hosting Jeopardy! at the time that he substituted for Chuck; "Alex Trebek, now host of Jeopardy!, filled in..." would be correct, but (2) the reason why Chuck Woolery missed a week of work 27 years ago isn't all that relevant to an encyclopedia article, even if we can credibly establish what the reason was, which we haven't, and (3) the sentence is badly written. Although the meaning may be obvious to most readers, the "he" to which it refers isn't clear from the way it's written. Someone who didn't know anything about the history of the show couldn't tell from reading that sentence whether Alex filled in because Chuck was out sick that day, or Alex got sick during an episode when he happened to be filling in for Chuck. In any case, it's pretty much celebrity gossip and fancruft. So it's gone. :) JTRH 16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not reading for context; I thought this was another "reason why Woolery quit" a la the suicide attempt malarkey, rather than the time he was gone. Ignore me. Lambertman 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A Tie On The Daytime Show

No bonus round was played if there was a tie between two or three players on the NBC shopping version. Was that true on the CBS/NBC play-for-cash version as well? --JoBrLa (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Team Episode?

Is it correct to add information that The Wheel of Fortune featured in an episode of the A Team?

Episode name: Wheel of Fortune Airdate: Jan. 14, 1986

As the episode begins, Murdock wins $28,000 and a trip to Hawaii on Wheel of Fortune. Later in the episode, Murdock wins a truck on the Wheel of Fortune finals.

Jamesedmo (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Host and hostess images

Hey! What happened to all the pictures of the hosts and hostesses???? --JoBrLa (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page. JTRH (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

The succession box (which has been fact-checked) has been the target of some erroneous information lately. I'm inclined to dump the thing altogether. I'm not sure it's all that relevant, and the main Wheel page from which this article was spun off has recently undergone a massive cleanup to about half its previous size. This one could use some slimming down, too. "Preceded by" and "succeeded by" in this context are confusing for the reader. For example, the first entry says the show aired at 10:30 AM from 1/6/75 to 1/16/76, preceded by Winning Streak and succeeded by High Rollers. The way it's phrased, a casual reader might not know whether that means Winning Streak was the previous program in the 10:30 time slot and High Rollers was the next one (which is the case), or whether "preceded by" and "succeeded by" means Winning Streak aired at 10, Wheel at 10:30, and High Rollers at 11. Anybody feel strongly about keeping this? JTRH (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. If anyone wants to know the complete schedule of network daytime programming, it's at curtalliaume.com. It hasn't been updated since 1999, but all the historical data are there. JTRH (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it hasn't been updated is there have been virtually no changes in daytime programming schedules since 1999 -- a couple of soap opera cancellations on NBC and one on ABC; in all cases the time slot was returned to local affiliates. I would like to put the succession boxes back, but I completely understand JTRH's concern here. The information needs to be accurate, verifiable, clear as to what succession means, and used on virtually every daytime show page -- and that's the rub (who has the time to do this?). Calliaume (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sajak's catchphrase

Nobody's bothered to mention Pat Sajak's famous "You bought that, it's yours to keep." catchphrase from the episodes where contestants had to spend their winnings until there was nothing cheap enough to purchase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.135.179 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's not his catchphrase – it's an explanation of the rules. Woolery used the same language when he hosted. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More precisely, the phrase was, "Once you buy a prize, it's yours to keep." I even remember a promo spot where the studio audience said it in unison. And the phrase does date back to the bery beginning of the show. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

1970s Facts

Why is it considered "fansite" and "trivial" to have information on pilots for a show that has run for nearly 35 years (despite only 26 of them being counted by the show itself)? And why do my edits keep being reverted? I only try to act in good faith when I edit, and I always try to add facts that I have certified to be true through YouTube videos and the like (although I realize that such things are not allowed and the reasons behind such a decision, it still doesn't make sense). I am not talking about original research here, mind you.

I am specifically talking about one user in particular, who continually feels the need to revert most everything I add to this page and others. Although he does revert other people's edits, I have noticed that the majority of reverts he makes are to mine - and even went so far as to remove a wheel layout that was made by somebody else, but only after the first instance of him doing so (some time back), in which I (some time back) reverted his edit and explained in the edit summary that I had verified the layout.

In addition, edits regarding the changes to the layout in the 1970s were reverted for being "too much like a fansite". Um...if nobody else covers it, then what are we supposed to do, hm? Just let the information die in a 10-year-old forum post or a website that hasn't been updated in two years?

Honestly, it feels like this editor has something against me...I don't wish to get in an edit war, and would rather have a third opinion because I don't think trying to resolve this dispute is going to work - I've already tried it, and it didn't work...and I don't think this abuse(?) will stop any time soon. Daniel Benfield (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The level of detail that is being reverted out includes far too much information about a pilot episode that bears little resemblance to the actual gameplay of this program. Wheel templates are of little interest to the general Wikipedian and the microscopic level of focus frequently contains opinion or unreferenced original research. If you are adding information you believe to be factual, cite sources by including references using the <REF> tag. Non-verification a wheel layout used on a pilot episode is not the reason why the image was removed. This information caters to a very specific audience and are barely anecdotal to general readers of this page.

The number of years that the production team counts towards the longevity of the program and/or franchise has little relevance to this article. If you have a question or require resolution as to why years are/are not counted, you may want to contact the current production team.

Random capitalization, dashes and semicolons are changed because they do not fit with Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Regarding your comment that "if nobody else covers it, then what are we supposed to do, hm?", create your own page on a non-Wikipedia-affiliated website. The availability of microscopic information is not reason enough to include it here. This project is not meant to encapsulate anything and everything related to each topic. The article is already very long for a television program, and frankly there is no need to have two separate pages for both the daytime and nighttime format of this program.

Finally, requesting a third opinion on a random article's talk page is not the proper way to request help in dealing with another user. This talk page is not a forum. The links to Wikipedia's third opinion and dispute resolution pages you've already mentioned should assist you with your concerns. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was merely following procedure as outlined on the WP:3 page, which reads Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. I even checked the disputes listed there, and I found that all disputed information was discussed on the relevant talk page. Hence, you are wrong on that front.

"This project is not meant to encapsulate anything and everything related to each topic." An encyclopedia is supposed to discuss all known information on the subject. Last I checked, Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia".

"The article is already very long for a television program, and frankly there is no need to have two separate pages for both the daytime and nighttime format of this program." I beg to differ. The current-day nighttime show uses very little of what the show had when it began in 1975, and rarely recognizes its own long history. If the two articles were merged, it would create one VERY LONG article that would be filled with information that the general viewer of the series would have no idea of (since the daytime series as a whole is very rarely discussed on the nighttime show).

As for minute details, none of the information in the article is such a thing - all of it regards the history of the show, and none of it can be removed without damaging the credibility of the article.

As for citing sources, I would be more than happy to if YouTube videos were allowed as references. All but a few Chuck Woolery episodes circulating amongst collectors (and at least two that aren't) have been uploaded, and have contributed heavily to this article. Same goes for some Sajak, Benirschke, and Goen episodes.

All four template images seen in the article have been verified. The 3000th syndicated show has a full shot of the pilot layout, while the E! True Hollywood Story on the program does the same. The other two can be verified through a quick search of YouTube. All information in the article has been verified by myself and others, but these verifications are damaged considerably since at least I used YouTube uploads as a primary source for information. Said links are pretty much taboo, however, unless the video is posted by the copyright holder (which will never, ever happen in the case of Wheel).

I see Wikipedia as a sort of memory/remembrance encyclopedia. Someone with vague memories of, say, three $500 spaces on the wheel in Round One - they would be able to find a line in the current revision that says "by the Star Bonus episodes in 1978, two more $500 spaces were added to Round One; between March 27 and December 31, 1979 the top amounts were increased to $750, $1,000, and $2,000..."; if any portion of that was removed, many who have a similar memory may pass it off as a figment of their imagination, and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. I've learned a lot about my "vague-memory childhood game shows" from Wikipedia, and I just want the same for others like me. Daniel Benfield (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia is supposed to discuss all known information on the subject. Last I checked, Wikipedia bills itself as 'the free encyclopedia'". True, however the intricate level of detail, such as the number of $500 wedges or the precise four-week period a $25 wedge appeared on the wheel is not encyclopedic—-it's information that caters to a very specific audience and not the general populace of Wikipedia.

Regarding YouTube, if you feel videos there should be allowed as sources you should request assistance from an administrator in order to present your objection and begin the process of adding it to the list of allowable sources. When you include unsourced information that is of such a precise level of detail it can be confused for fancruft or original research.

The number of wheel layouts included in this article is not necessary. One picture and the range of dollar values and number of special spaces is sufficient detail when describing the layout of other templates.

Your opinion of Wikipedia philosophy and purpose is of course valid, however the information you are attempting to include again is of a very intricate, minute level aimed at a specific audience (fans of the show/genre). However, you should consider focusing your effort into an external Wheel of Fortune archive that can be linked within the article here. The external site could serve as a fan base for people like yourself who are interested in the detailed inner-workings and intricacies of the program rather than expanding upon an already long and overly detailed article here. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of my contributions to Wikipedia in the last 14 months have been anonymous, for a variety of reasons, but every now and then I need to drop the cloak of anonymity. I created the daytime show page. I spun it off from the original article which went back and forth between the two formats and was, at that time, 65KB when it's recommended that Wikipedia articles not be over 50KB. There are enough differences between the two show formats (dollar values for the entire time the two shows ran concurrently, daytime shopping vs. nighttime cash from 1987-1989, bonus prize formats after 1989, hosts after 1989, and returning champion rules until 1989) that having two articles rather than one that goes back and forth between cash-and-shopping, Sajak-and-Goen, etc., makes the main show article flow much better. So I agree with Daniel that the daytime article should remain separate. That said, I share Sottolacqua's concern that some of the information is unnecessarily detailed and, I would add, of questionable verifiability. I've been guilty of that myself; not long after the page was created, it had not only a layout of the wheel values but also a comparison to the equivalent values on the nighttime wheel, and a comparison of the different show openings used for Sajak's and Goen's respective introductions. Another game show aficionado very gently pointed out that this was essentially fancruft, removed it, and the article was better without it.

Leaving aside the overall issue of using YouTube as a source for Wikipedia, I question in this specific case whether the air date stated by the poster of a YouTube clip can be reliably and independently verified. I think it's entirely enough information to state that, for example, the Free Spin token changed color from brown to green in 1989, without attempting to fix the exact air date of the episode when it happened. Nor is it, in my opinion, necessary to fix the exact date when the daytime show went into reruns for its last few weeks on the air, even if that date can be independently verified. The only really relevant date in that instance is when the show actually left the air. (Daniel, you and I had this conversation on your talk page a couple of months ago, though I was anonymous.) I think most of this would make for a great fan page on another site. But I have to say it's not encyclopedic. I no longer want to participate enough in Wikipedia to edit this down, but it needs it. Thanks for listening. The temporarily non-anonymous JTRH (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's such a thing as "too much" information, such as the number of specific instances a given dollar amount appears on a particular Wheel template or the color of a free spin token; the only space where I think it matters that we list the number of instances is the Bankrupt space (one in the first round, and two in subsequent rounds, because it affects gameplay). I know Sottolacqua and I have had discussions on the Wheel of Fortune gameplay talk page about the inclusion of a few rules about what happens when a puzzle needs to be replaced (such as all three contestants being unable to solve it for some odd reason, reasoning that it had to do with production), but that aside, I think that it may be a good idea for whomever added the trivia tag to list what he/she sees as the excess trivia (in the article's current state), so that we can debate it and weigh the merits of said information's inclusion (although I don't even remember the Sajak and Goen intro statements in this article, so I guess I can say I don't miss that).

That said, we try to include as much information as possible without being overly detailed. We're all guilty of that sometimes. If there are ways we can fix the sentences and improve on what we have, please, let's use this talk page to debate it. Thank you kindly. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)]]

Retrospectives and episode status

I'm returning to the article for the first time in a long while. Despite my July comment (above) about not wanting to be involved, I'm considering combining the sections on retrospective and episode status, where there would be one place to discuss the existence of a particular early episode and the fact that it's been seen on an anniversary show of the current series. Thoughts? JTRH (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merv Griffin and Jimmi Hendrix invented Wheel of Fortune

I remember seeing Merv Griffin on MTV years ago mention how he met Jimmi Hendrix playing a game called Hangman, and that's how he came up with the idea for Wheel of Fortune. Anyone know where to find a reference for that? Dream Focus 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

The phrasing about the ratings was very carefully chosen. Family Feud was off the air as a network show for four years (84-88) while the daytime Wheel was on. Wheel was #2 behind TPIR when FF was off, and #3 behind TPIR and both the ABC (until 1984) and CBS (1988 and later) versions of FF respectively. That's why it's phrased the way it is. JTRH (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)