This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is an obvious edit war going on between me and Sottolacqua in reference to the succession box at the end of this article. I've attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page, only to have my discussion erased, warnings posted to my talk page, and this page (along with Rich Fields, Syd Vinnedge, and Johnny Olson) reverted, sans succession boxes.
Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes aren't necessary because few people have held these offices. However, that is inconsistent with other entertainment articles, and even other Price-related articles, such as Drew Carey, Bob Barker, Doug Davidson, Tom Kennedy, and Dennis James.
Again, I have attempted to have a fruitful discussion with him on his page, only to just be erased (and not only that, be warned for vandalism!). I'm not a vandal. I'm just trying to make an honest edit. But it seems one user has attempted to take ownership of all of these articles. -- 70.242.164.14 ( talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you both just stop arguing over this issue! Ok, yes I understand that you both disagree on whether or not the succession boxes should be added. I have notified the administrators & they'll soon send an explanation of why the succession boxes should be added. If it is determined that they should be added, we'll keep them. If not, then don't even attempt to add them. No more edit wars over this issue, got it? We're gonna keep the peace & wait for an administrator to resolve this problem.
- User:MegastarLV ( talk) September 2010
As you know, on various entertainment related articles, there is usually a "Succession Box" at the end of the article, detailing who came before and who came after in the same position, along with the years they spent in the position.
I recently noticed a number of Price is Right-related articles seemed to be missing these successor boxes, while some articles seemed to have them intact. I added the boxes to this article (Mike Richards), Syd Vinnedge, Rich Fields, Johnny Olson, and Rod Roddy. These boxes were removed, without explanation, shortly after adding them.
There seems to be an inconsistency with these boxes -- for example, User:Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes are "unnecessary," and the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation with the show. Additionally, he has made the claim that because so few people have been associated with some of these positions, they are unneeded.
Let's address the first one first -- absolutely, the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation... there's no denying that. However, in most cases, a user would have to read through quite a few paragraphs (or maybe more, if fancruft is involved, as is the case on many game show articles) to find something as simple as what years that subject was in their position on the show. The succession boxes make this information easily accessible, and it makes navigation easy too among successor and predecessor articles.
As for the second argument (that we shouldn't include boxes because "so few" are associated with these positions): looking at Alex Trebek as an example, he has a succession box for being the host of Jeopardy!, which only had one prior host, Art Fleming. The same sort of logic applies to Bob Barker and Drew Carey in the Price-realm, and other entertainers & media personalities elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Finally, there are issues of ownership with certain editors in regards to these Price-related articles that I am concerned with. WikiLubber, for example, has stated in revision comments that "Sottolacqua is never wrong". MegastarLV has been quoted as saying: "I have been told by User:Sottolacqua that these succession boxes are unnecessary." This is alarming that one user can effectively control the content and the formatting of a number of articles related to one subject... Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration & discussion.
I would like comments from outsiders on these issues, with the succession boxes taking priority, obviously. If these articles don't deserve succession boxes, then there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia where succession boxes need to be removed. - 70.242.164.14 ( talk) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
To me, it really depends on the individual situation.
For politicians, for example, succession boxes are often unnecessary now, as {{ Infobox Politician}} includes fields for individual positions with predecessor and successor information, so repeating the same information again in a succession box is just creeping templatitis. Similarly, a template such as {{ Governors of Texas}} also eliminates the need for a succession box, given that if the template is organized properly the occupants will already be organized in chronological order anyway.
For people in entertainment, however, it might be different, because alternatives to a succession box might not be available or appropriate. So, to me, the question here is: is this succession box providing useful information that can't be provided in another way, or is it needlessly duplicating information that could be better presented by rearranging {{ The Price Is Right}} or adding succession information to the infobox? There's no right or wrong answer here; it really depends on the individual circumstances.
Personally, I will almost always make every possible effort to avoid using succession footers altogether, because they're just irredeemably ugly. But that's me, and YMMV. Bearcat ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Echoing this from what I recently commented over at Talk:Jeopardy!#Infobox and guest hosts:
Don't think we should be getting ahead ourselves and saying that he's going to be the next permanent host of the show. You can read my full explanation there, but at this point, it seems like nothing is set/definitive yet, even from the articles put out today. We can likely include the information being reported about being in advanced negotiations, but we should wait until the official announcement is released (according to Deadline, 'in the next few days') before saying that he is going to be the next host of the show. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Why have the comments that this guy supposedly said that are anti-gay, Anti-Black etc either not put in the article or were put in and then taken out? Lets hear them! A lot of people are accused of things that turn out later to not be true. Is this one of those? One has to conclude "yes" if Wikipedia won't put the comments in. Man up guys. Put the comments in the article or apologize. -- 2600:6C65:747F:14C9:8568:D7C8:DCE1:B9AE ( talk) 22:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
So as I was editing 2021 in American television today, I noticed the Chain Reaction entry in Shows returning mentioned Mike Richards in the references, as he was assuming his old role from the previous incarnation and the announcement article was from before his career imploded. It occurred to me that I didn't remember coverage of it mentioning whether CR struck him down too. Has there been any word?-- 141.157.254.24 ( talk) 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
In section "Wrongful termination lawsuit", this article states, "...he claimed that she was fired from the show because he thought that she 'would not take us to great' ".
While the second footnote does contain this quote, it has a different context than the one implied here. Also, this quote is not proper English, so it does not make sense to me. I urge that it be removed or changed, but I do not have time to study the issue. David Spector ( talk) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table under filmography, Jeopardy!, please change 15 episodes to 5 episodes. Reference is on the jeopardy link to the left on the table. Thanks. 75.161.254.228 ( talk) 04:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is an obvious edit war going on between me and Sottolacqua in reference to the succession box at the end of this article. I've attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page, only to have my discussion erased, warnings posted to my talk page, and this page (along with Rich Fields, Syd Vinnedge, and Johnny Olson) reverted, sans succession boxes.
Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes aren't necessary because few people have held these offices. However, that is inconsistent with other entertainment articles, and even other Price-related articles, such as Drew Carey, Bob Barker, Doug Davidson, Tom Kennedy, and Dennis James.
Again, I have attempted to have a fruitful discussion with him on his page, only to just be erased (and not only that, be warned for vandalism!). I'm not a vandal. I'm just trying to make an honest edit. But it seems one user has attempted to take ownership of all of these articles. -- 70.242.164.14 ( talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you both just stop arguing over this issue! Ok, yes I understand that you both disagree on whether or not the succession boxes should be added. I have notified the administrators & they'll soon send an explanation of why the succession boxes should be added. If it is determined that they should be added, we'll keep them. If not, then don't even attempt to add them. No more edit wars over this issue, got it? We're gonna keep the peace & wait for an administrator to resolve this problem.
- User:MegastarLV ( talk) September 2010
As you know, on various entertainment related articles, there is usually a "Succession Box" at the end of the article, detailing who came before and who came after in the same position, along with the years they spent in the position.
I recently noticed a number of Price is Right-related articles seemed to be missing these successor boxes, while some articles seemed to have them intact. I added the boxes to this article (Mike Richards), Syd Vinnedge, Rich Fields, Johnny Olson, and Rod Roddy. These boxes were removed, without explanation, shortly after adding them.
There seems to be an inconsistency with these boxes -- for example, User:Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes are "unnecessary," and the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation with the show. Additionally, he has made the claim that because so few people have been associated with some of these positions, they are unneeded.
Let's address the first one first -- absolutely, the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation... there's no denying that. However, in most cases, a user would have to read through quite a few paragraphs (or maybe more, if fancruft is involved, as is the case on many game show articles) to find something as simple as what years that subject was in their position on the show. The succession boxes make this information easily accessible, and it makes navigation easy too among successor and predecessor articles.
As for the second argument (that we shouldn't include boxes because "so few" are associated with these positions): looking at Alex Trebek as an example, he has a succession box for being the host of Jeopardy!, which only had one prior host, Art Fleming. The same sort of logic applies to Bob Barker and Drew Carey in the Price-realm, and other entertainers & media personalities elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Finally, there are issues of ownership with certain editors in regards to these Price-related articles that I am concerned with. WikiLubber, for example, has stated in revision comments that "Sottolacqua is never wrong". MegastarLV has been quoted as saying: "I have been told by User:Sottolacqua that these succession boxes are unnecessary." This is alarming that one user can effectively control the content and the formatting of a number of articles related to one subject... Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration & discussion.
I would like comments from outsiders on these issues, with the succession boxes taking priority, obviously. If these articles don't deserve succession boxes, then there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia where succession boxes need to be removed. - 70.242.164.14 ( talk) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
To me, it really depends on the individual situation.
For politicians, for example, succession boxes are often unnecessary now, as {{ Infobox Politician}} includes fields for individual positions with predecessor and successor information, so repeating the same information again in a succession box is just creeping templatitis. Similarly, a template such as {{ Governors of Texas}} also eliminates the need for a succession box, given that if the template is organized properly the occupants will already be organized in chronological order anyway.
For people in entertainment, however, it might be different, because alternatives to a succession box might not be available or appropriate. So, to me, the question here is: is this succession box providing useful information that can't be provided in another way, or is it needlessly duplicating information that could be better presented by rearranging {{ The Price Is Right}} or adding succession information to the infobox? There's no right or wrong answer here; it really depends on the individual circumstances.
Personally, I will almost always make every possible effort to avoid using succession footers altogether, because they're just irredeemably ugly. But that's me, and YMMV. Bearcat ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Echoing this from what I recently commented over at Talk:Jeopardy!#Infobox and guest hosts:
Don't think we should be getting ahead ourselves and saying that he's going to be the next permanent host of the show. You can read my full explanation there, but at this point, it seems like nothing is set/definitive yet, even from the articles put out today. We can likely include the information being reported about being in advanced negotiations, but we should wait until the official announcement is released (according to Deadline, 'in the next few days') before saying that he is going to be the next host of the show. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Why have the comments that this guy supposedly said that are anti-gay, Anti-Black etc either not put in the article or were put in and then taken out? Lets hear them! A lot of people are accused of things that turn out later to not be true. Is this one of those? One has to conclude "yes" if Wikipedia won't put the comments in. Man up guys. Put the comments in the article or apologize. -- 2600:6C65:747F:14C9:8568:D7C8:DCE1:B9AE ( talk) 22:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
So as I was editing 2021 in American television today, I noticed the Chain Reaction entry in Shows returning mentioned Mike Richards in the references, as he was assuming his old role from the previous incarnation and the announcement article was from before his career imploded. It occurred to me that I didn't remember coverage of it mentioning whether CR struck him down too. Has there been any word?-- 141.157.254.24 ( talk) 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
In section "Wrongful termination lawsuit", this article states, "...he claimed that she was fired from the show because he thought that she 'would not take us to great' ".
While the second footnote does contain this quote, it has a different context than the one implied here. Also, this quote is not proper English, so it does not make sense to me. I urge that it be removed or changed, but I do not have time to study the issue. David Spector ( talk) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table under filmography, Jeopardy!, please change 15 episodes to 5 episodes. Reference is on the jeopardy link to the left on the table. Thanks. 75.161.254.228 ( talk) 04:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)