Talk:List of The Price Is Right pricing games

Dates

Shouldn't there be a little note by each game indicating when it was introduced (and, in the case of retired games, when it was retired)? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide acceptable, reliable and verifiable sources showing the air date for game premieres/retirements, add them. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I admit dates might be difficult to find absent going to golden-road.net or the Game Show Central Web site, but here's another thought — how about adding photos by each pricing game entry? We had (apparently) acceptable photographs with the now-former pricing game articles, but now they're not being used since virtually all of those articles — short of Plinko and Cliff Hangers — were afd'ed. I'd suggest putting the info in a table form, include a thumbnail picture and a basic game format (grocery, small price, car, cash, and #P (for number of medium/large prizes), combining these tags as appropriate); the only suggestion is for the latter (the "basic game format," would reliable sources be required? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]]

Fan message boards containing self-published, non-referenced information are not reliable sources. Adding 100+ photos to this article would be pretty excessive. Games with simple gameplay don't need an image to provide additional clarification, although some games with more complex gameplay may benefit from a picture. The designation of games as "grocery, small price, car...etc" is not necessary, and combining tags would make the table non-sortable.Sottolacqua (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that from the context of the text of a given pricing game description, someone can figure out whether a game is a grocery, small prize, car ... etc.? That said, perhaps putting this in some sort of table — regardless of whether photos are added — would make this an easier article to read, at the very least, in my opinion ... even if it were just two or three columns. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]]

How can you confirm that this classification matches how the production of the program classifies this game? Are these classifications assigned by fans or viewers, or are these official designations? Take Pass the Buck for example. Is this a cash game, a car game and a grocery product game? Do these three designations match how the game is classified by the production staff? How can you be sure? What source do you have? The game descriptions that offer cash or cars as the main prize already discuss that feature within the narrative. Additionally, games that use grocery products or smaller prizes are also mentioned.

Combining the games into a sortable table may have been beneficial when there were individual articles for each game, but now that the project has been condensed into one article, a table may not be practical considering the narrative paragraphs used to describe gameplay. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple yes or no would have sufficed with my question. I believe I already was in agreement with you, or at least understood amicably, that classification — although readily obvious to viewers via the context — might be difficult, if not impossible to source with existing third-party reference. (Surpisingly, there aren't many, if any third-party reliable sources that I'm aware of, but it's beyond Wikipedia's scope to encourage someone to write and publish a third-party source, and I am certain that TPiR does not make public its "classification" of pricing games. For all we know, they could just be "pricing game" without an official — or any — designation.) And FWIW, since you brought it up, I'd classify "Pass the Buck" as all three that you mention, but since it's coming from someone that could be classified as a fan (i.e., me), it cannot be used as a reliable source; and I doubt we can use the show either as a "reliable source," which is what I think what many of Wikipedians do with many television show-related articles, including this "List of The Price is Right pricing games" article. (However, further discussion on use of television episodes as reliable sources might belong in a different forum.) As far as your comments against using a table, I just have to believe there is a better way we can present it. Anyone? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]]

What more information do you have to add that would make a sortable table necessary? The games are already categorized by active/retired and sorted alphabetically. Since there are no sources presented for premiere/retirement dates and we agree on the "game designation" question, what additional data would you suggest be placed in other columns of a table? Sottolacqua (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you already answered the table question — you recommended against it, and I understand that. (Remember my remark, " I just have to believe there is a better way we can present it," which although you can interpret it as you wish, did not necessarily mean I was calling for a table after your statement.) What I was/am wondering about is whether there is another way to make the presentation better. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]]

What about the presentation do you feel needs to be improved? Sottolacqua (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me give this some thought, but I think it's more just the overall look. I believe the appearance looks "bland" (for lack of a better term), but I'm not sure just yet how — or if — it can be improved in that vein. Note that I left it open to suggestions from others, who may agree with either one of us. Meanwhile, if I think of anything, I'll run it by you. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]]

"Finish Line" and "Give or Keep"

Sottolacqua — In your edit summary, you explain the reason for reverting a recent edit of mine re: Finish Line as "The goal is identical (to Give or Keep) but gameplay and presentation is not." OK, how was the gameplay of Finish Line different from Give or Keep? Without making this a forum, I submit to you that they were identical — i.e., shown three sets of prizes, player picks the one he thinks is more expensive, other price announced and (after three questions played) the sum of the rejected items makes up the goal. That's why essentially someone could read "Give or Keep" to get the gist. And I also had the presentation part (standard tallying for Give or Keep, horse racing for Finish Line) as being the main difference between the two. Just trying to be a little efficient here, but I'd sure appreciate an explanation. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]]

The edit you made included a non-standard "see also" reference not used in other articles on Wikipedia. No other description of games within this article that have "identical gameplay" (i.e., Double Prices/Coming or Going/Side by Side, Bonus Game/Shell Game) include this same type of "see also" comment. It's more complicated to direct a reader to another non-linked section of the same article instead of just describing the game. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]]

Trivia and statements of implied information

Please try to keep inclusion of trivia (such as the order of pricing game debuts and whether or not parts of the game props flip over, light up, were renovated/added/removed, etc.) and the statement of implied information (such as "missing all four pricing portions guarantees a loss") to a minimum. This article should be about the gameplay of each pricing game and refrain from including miscellaneous/duplicate information. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please keep chronology of gameplay descriptions consistent throughout the article. Each game includes a narrative describing the current gameplay and then goes on to discuss any rule changes. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, you undoers have managed to take all the fun out of a really fun gameshow. Every edit I make is undone promptly, even though all the information I include is correct. The page is boring, too long, and inaccurate in places. But why would anyone want to improve it when every edit gets undone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serop2 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anything you add to an article needs to have a reliable and verifiable source (and not just "I saw this on TV"). And this is a very long article already without adding descriptions of the way the props look and work. Putting unsourced and/or trivial information into the article isn't "improving" it at all. JTRH (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So I guess you'd rather have a properly sourced article that is inaccurate than an unsourced article that is accurate. Hm. Again, the reason so many Wikipedia articles remain blah and inaccurate for so long is because of people like you who insist on taking the fun out of everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serop2 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, how can you prove that it's accurate? And what about the article as it exists do you believe to be "inaccurate"? JTRH (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheating incidents

Is there currently any PIR-related Wiki-article that mentions the cheating incidents involving Flip-Flop, Shell Game, and 3 Strikes? If not, why not? 108.1.68.63 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Three incidents of cheating are not notable events in 38+ years of television episodes. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cover-Up strategy

I don't suppose this would be considered suitable for the article, but I want to at least offer it for consideration:
In the Cover Up game, the first of the five price digits is generally an "obvious" choice. Contestants almost always pick the right digit first time. The SECOND digit is also generally "obvious": car prices are typically low-$20,000's or high-$10,000's; if $20,000's, the second digit choice is usually something like 1, 7, or 9; so 1 is the obvious choice. If $10,000's, as I saw the other day, the choice would be as I saw, 1, 3 or 8; so 8 is obviously correct. Contestants also usually pick this digit correctly the first time. But, a crucial aspect of this game is that guessing may only continue as long as at least one new correct choice is made at each stage. Guessing correctly on the last three digits is mostly a matter of luck, and has low likelihood of success because of the large number of choices. On the first guess, continuation is assured because you know the first 2 digits are correct. After that, one may hope that at least any ONE choice they make is correct, and will allow guessing to continue; but that is risky. (If they had any further digits correct on the first guess, they're closer to the "solution", but that also reduces the number of opportunities -- digits -- to get at least one more right immediately.) A safer strategy in general, but one which contestants almost never employ, and which Drew vaguely alludes to when it IS used, is to "save" one of the first two digits, say, the second digit, for the second guessing-stage, by deliberatley choosing it WRONG on the first guess, and then choosing it correctly on the SECOND stage, to act as a safeguard on that guess, in the event no other digit is chosen correctly; so the SECOND guess is also "safe". And this allows the rest of the digits to be guessed "at risk" with fewer choices remaining, and hence, a better chance of success. 108.1.68.63 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is original research and not info that belongs in this article. It's better suited for a fansite or message board. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About Credit Card and Check Game

Alright, I promise I won't edit Credit Card and Check Game as being retired anymore, ok, but please answer one question............... if they aren't retired, then how come neither game got played even once in season 38? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.152.116 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that both games are still listed on the show site as active games. That is the official source. Therefore, you can't source the statement that they're retired. When it changes on the site, you can change it here. JTRH (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but................. would you happen to know why neither game was played last season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.152.116 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. And neither do you. JTRH (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll not bring it up anymore. (208.114.152.116) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.152.116 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The show's list of games is here: [[1]]. If the list changes, go for it. JTRH (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Cliff Hangers" into this article?

The Cliff Hangers page does not have enough citations, and I suggest that article be merged into this article. Feel free to leave any replies here. Lamp301 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing game?

I recall seeing a few times a game where the contestant had to put professional sports season ticket packages in price order. I *think* they were the Lakers, Dodgers, Rams, and Kings. The four main professional sports. And of course baseball was always first and football last, because of the number of games. I believe the contestant had three chances to pull a handle to see if they were in the correct order.

148.150.30.3 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of Race Game, which is covered here. It's timed, not based on a number of chances. JTRH (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no such game. You must have it partially confused with Race Game. WikiLubber (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was smerge Plinko as follows

• Any rules of the original game and the "$1,000,000 Spectaculars", not already in the article, go to List of The Price Is Right pricing games.
• The "Rigged board" incident goes to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Critical reaction and legal issues.
• Parts of the "Foreign versions" section will go to The Price Is Right (UK game show) (United Kingdom section) and The Price Is Right#International versions (other sections, without existing articles for the national version).

The remaining content of the "Other formats" section is already included in the relevant article, thus no need to merge them anywhere. -- Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plinko (3rd nomination) was keep. However, the AfD is not a substitute tool for merger discussions as discussed. We shall continue the merger proposal here. Everybody says "Plinko" when The Price Is Right comes up; the inactive rules are not still cited. Therefore, I'm not certain if the article will hold on any longer. --Gh87 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I brought up at AfD, there are many newspaper and scholarly articles on Plinko, including journal articles about its use for teaching probability and an entire article (Alexander et al.) where the author writes about using a self-described Plinko board to randomize survey responses to sensitive questions in a way that cannot be easily gamed. This sort of coverage clearly goes above and beyond the coverage of other pricing games, enough so to make this pricing game itself notable. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Do I have to use the references you recommended? To me they have referred to the main idea of the game, not the rules and inactive rules thereof. Actually, you can read WP:OVERKILL WP:OVERLINK to know how much entry needs to be cited. To me Plinko's intentions is cited enough and commonly known, so I do not know if citation for its Plinko's goal is need. However, the history of possible maximum winnings still need to be cited: rules can change as well as cash slots. For example, $5,000 was upgraded to $10,000 in 1998: this fact needs citations. Maximum winning was $25,000; it was upgraded to $50,000. --Gh87 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • See WP:PLOT for the proposition that adding coverage of Plinko's reception is not only encyclopedic, but also desirable. Plot summary should be kept to a minimum. Additionally, for your example, I think that citing particular episodes to verify the rules of the game is appropriate. The guidelines WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY tell us that citing to particular episodes of the show is appropriate for citing facts obvious to anyone watching the episode, provided that no original research is involved. I don't think it's original research to say (1) that the top prize is currently $50,000, (2) that each time Plinko is played, the rules are generally the same (that is, we can make general statements about the rules of the game without having to speculate whether the Smarch 13, 2056 rules for the game of Plinko played on the episode aired that day were the same as the rules on the Smarch 29 episode). Because The Price Is Right is a valid source for non-self-serving information on itself, a statement by the host saying that the $50,000 is new, as well as an airdate, would together appropriately verify your example statement. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What "changes" to the rules have there been, other than that the value of the top slot has doubled, and the Doug Davidson version used higher-lower rather than "which digit is correct?" JTRH (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Merge here, but move some content to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)—Any information specific to the game's rules that is not already included in this article should be merged here. The rules to "other formats" are already included in The New Price Is Right (1994 game show), The Price Is Right Live! and Gameshow Marathon (U.S. TV series), as well as this article for the $1,000,000 Spectaculars. The "'Rigged board' incident" section can be moved to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Critical reaction and legal issues. The Foreign versions section is entirely unsourced, and would be a bit much to include in this article. That information can either be deleted or added to each individual article for the international version, or briefly mentioned in The Price Is Right#International versions. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with the concerns by Sottolacqua and Gh87. We need to merge some content into the game show's article and its parent article and the foreign versions may be included in the International versions, as well as the rigged board incident in the Critical reaction and legal issues section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge User:George Ho asked me about this discussion here. For clarity for the closer weighing my opinion, George was asking a procedural question, and did not ask me to !vote. However, I am commenting, since I agree with the rationales presented by Sjones23 and Sottolacqua->CowboySpartan. Begoon ^talk 02:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Retired games" or "Inactive games"

Shall we call them "retired" or "inactive"? --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Inactive games

The "Inactive games" section has been fact-tagged for 18 months. I renamed the "Retired games" section as "Inactive games" and moved Card Game and Credit Card to that section.

Additionally, the show's official site detailing games does not include pages for the following games:

• Five Price Tags
• Grand Game
• Make Your Move
• One Right Price

There are two titles/pictures for One Away, but the second one actually links to One Wrong Price. I've relocated the four games listed above to the Inactive games section.

Please do not relocate any of these games to the Active games section without providing a source. Once the new season starts on 26 September 2013, if a game currently listed as inactive is played on-air, relocate that game to the Active games section and use Template:Cite episode to add a reference with the airdate and episode number. The airdate and episode number to be included can be found on the official site. AldezD (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved Five Price Tags, Grand Game and Make Your Move to Active games per updates to the official site today. AldezD (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Play Along"

This wasn't a game, per se, but it was when a TV audience member would win the same prize if the contestant won it. Check out the first episode with Bob's new, natural hair color (1987): [Removed WP:LINKVIO RJaguar3 | u | t 03:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)] Its been tacked onto the 3 Strikes game. Should there be some mention of Play Along in the aritcle? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have sourced info to add, this might be more appropriate in a subsection rather than added to each individual game, or possibly added to the The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Pricing games section in the parent article. AldezD (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Step Up, Vend-O-Price and references

Step Up has been removed from the official site's list of games. Additionally, the game has not been played since 17 October 2014 Due to the length of time since the last playing, and because it has been removed from the official site (which meets WP:V), the game has been moved to the Inactive games section. If other editors have a source that meets WP:V which contradicts its omission from the official site and states the game will be played in the future, please include that reference when moving the game back to the Active games section.

Regarding Vend-O-Price, the game was first played on episode 7215K which aired 25 September 2015. Template:Cite episode has been added to the game's description for the first playing. Although the game is also not listed on the official site, the game has been played multiple times since its premiere on 25 September, suggesting that it will again be played in the future. AldezD (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Vend-o-Price is now on the official site. [2]. AldezD (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Split Plinko off again?

Four and half years ago, Plinko was merged here...kind of. The gameplay content is here, while the rest of the content, such as cultural references and controversies, is scattered to the four winds. I believe this is in error, particularly since Plinko has continued to be culturally referenced in since the 2011 discussion (most notably with "Drinko" on the Fallon show). I also believe it would be better if all the stuff that's Plinko-related was on the same page. Plinko can very easily be referenced now, which was one of the original concerns that prompted its merger. pbp 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This article currently describes gameplay in an accurate and concise manner. Are List of Jimmy Fallon games and sketches#Drinko and The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)#Plinko board incident enough to warrant a full article? There are definitely other cultural references to the game. But would detailing these two sub-sections and the other cultural references create a good article or an indiscriminate collection of trivia and cruft? AldezD (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there'd be more than just the things you've listed...and I also think you're far too quick to call stuff trivia and cruft. pbp 19:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring by Nicco18

To be true, the whole restructuring is not exactly an improvement. Due to the chosen layout the article will become even longer than it already was, without a real benefit. And by now the article has 33 links to disambiguation pages. In fact, those links are links leading to nothing (no article about the game exists) or are circular (redirected to "List of The Price Is Right pricing games"). This is not in the best interest of the article. The Banner talk 09:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to table format

Please stop modifying this article from narrative into a table format. Additionally, there are no sources for the dates added noting the first/last playings of each game. AldezD (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will agree to no sources for dates and a table format. I am looking into finding more sources for the article because it lacks sources. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Plinko on Let's Make a Deal?

Due to the TPIR games being played during Mashup Week on LMAD mentioned here, I feel like the one time they played Plinko should get a mention under Special Rule Changes. For April Fool's Day 2015, Plinko was played for its $50,000 prize. The contestant got 2 chips for free. Wayne, Tiffany, and Jonathan each had an envelope, each containing a slip for 1-3 more chips. The contestant was then given the option of taking a small prize or playing with their accumulated chips. Chandlerism (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Placing this in the Mash-up Week section under the "The following games were exported to Let's Make a Deal" header (and mentioning it was for April Fool's) would be a good place for it. AldezD (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213171050/http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_young_and_the_restless/bio/doug_davidson/bio.php to http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_young_and_the_restless/bio/doug_davidson/bio.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Magic Number

Please stop moving this game from active to retired without providing a WP:V source. Musings on message boards and unverified details do not meet WP:V and should not be the basis of rumors about the game's retirement. The official show's website still lists this game as active. AldezD (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Back to '72"

Please stop changing the name of the game to "Back to XX" or "Back to ...". The game's name is neither of these titles. "Back to '72" appeared in the 2021–2022 season regularly, and once as "Back to '73" in the 2022–2023 season as of January 2023. Please stop changing details without providing WP:V sources, and please stop removing cite templates. AldezD (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)