Talk:Lingo (American game show)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

We were watching a game on GSN on February 11, 2006 and it said "busty" was not a word. It is listed in "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" Houghton Mifflin Company, American Heritage Company, Boston/New York/Atlanta/Geneva, Illinois/Dallas/Palo Alto 1969: Busty: bust-y (bus'te) adj -ier, -iest, . Informal. Full-bosomed.

Call me 910-458-7060 or e-mail me flossie_mom@yahoo.com

Really? I remember one time the word was something related to breasts. But the cohost gave some other meaning. --Ssj4android 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I made up a paper adaptation of the game awhile back. You don't need numbered balls (as it's not part of my game). Just make a 5×5 grid, come up with a five letter word, and follow the Lingo rules. What I have personally used is a plus sign in the bottom right-hand corner for a correctly placed letter, a minus sign for a misplaced letter, and an X if the letter is not in the word. After five guesses, just give them the word (I know they keep going in Lingo, though.)

Why I am putting this is I am asking if the paper adaptation is encyclopedic. (It can be easily adapted to a paper-and-pencil game.) Here are the pros and cons that I have. You may add more, just sign with three tildes like I have..

Pros

• Easily adapted to such. FranklinCougar89
• Essentially a version of Mastermind (which Wikipedia also lists as being adaptable to paper-and-pencil). FranklinCougar89

Cons

• Don't know how many people have played such a version. FranklinCougar89
• Don't think there are many anyway. FranklinCougar89

I'll go ahead and put it up for vote if it is encyclopedic. Just want to be cautious. Thanks, FranklinCougar89 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember playing Mastermind. When did you think up the pencil and paper version of Lingo? I'm thinking you're probably not the first, though. --Ssj4android 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on this already: Jotto. Speight 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to mention that I added a link to a tool that I created to help people solve the puzzles at home.

http://www.jasonholm.com/lingo.html

• Your tool seems to be broken; no matter what I put in, it says "Found 0 words!". I'm temporarily removing it from the Links section. Kickaha Ota 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing "No Lingo" section

Someone put the {{confusing}} tag on the No Lingo section, and I agree that it was difficult to follow. I rewrote it in an effort to make it clearer and easier to follow (both by rewording the text and by adding a diagram). I don't think it's confusing in its current form, so I removed the tag. If you disagree, naturally you can re-add the tag, or just fix my writing. :) Kickaha Ota 13:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I went back to a revision prior to August 14, 2006; and the only confusing aspect of that section was the lack of a mention of the number of draws required prior to it being increased by incorrect guesses to the word. All things considered, it was, in my opinion, clear enough to understand exactly how the round was played (granted, maybe not as easy to paraphrase it); although I admit I did read this entire article about 20 hours ago (according to its edit history, it has not been edited for over three weeks save for a previously-omitted space added in about 6 hours ago); I noticed your comment because I watchlisted this page after I made my post at the bottom of this page. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced notes

The "Notes" section currently contains the following paragraph:

Like any TV show Lingo has its detractors, but reviews have generally been positive. Fans of the show say the cleverly designed gameplay offers much play-along value for the viewer, Woolery maintains a friendly atmosphere with touches of humor, and the competition often generates real suspense. Critics have derided the show's paltry prizes, the sometimes anticlimactic bonus round, the questionable judging (valid words such as "zesty" and "forts" have been rejected by the show's judges), and the introduction of Stacey Hayes as co-host in the third season.

This seems very POVish, and should probably be removed if its various claims cannot be sourced. Kickaha Ota 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some of this stuff and tried to keep it balanced. If anything the praise is pretty level with the criticism, so it's hard to see how an NPOV objection could hold. As for sourcing, I'll scrounge around the web for reviews of the show. An easy source of both kudos and dissings for the show would be the GSN web board. Casey Abell 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just realized that many of the points made in the paragraph are already in the IMDb link under "user comments." I think we can let the paragraph stand as a balanced assessment of the show. Casey Abell 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Split out a separate evaluation section for the paragraph and added the GSN board as a source of many other reviews and comments on the show. Casey Abell 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine; the source is what was really needed, so that it comes across as "These people over here say X, but these other people over there say Y" and not "Wikipedia editors think X and Y". Kickaha Ota 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My spelling gets creative sometimes. My comment on the edit included "ebaluation," which sounds like something nasty that happens to your guts. Casey Abell 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means your opponent gets control of the page. Kickaha Ota 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sorta like pulling one of those red balls from the hopper. Come to think of it, "e-ball-uation" sounds like a good word for pulling a stopper. Casey Abell 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First Version

I was wondering if the first version of this series was the 1987 USA version, or did it originate somewhere else?

No Shandy?!

I've seen an episode with no Shandy. It looked new so I doubt it was old because they had that other lady. Is Shandy gone?--Ice66Breaker 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the "question mark" paragraph

I know that the question mark balls are used as wild cards, but I don't understand the following. "A variety of unusual situations can arise during a game. According to an unauthenticated first-person account by a contestant (A Brush with The Chuck), a wild-card-substituted number drawn in a subsequent round is ignored; the segment is edited out of the aired version of the show". What do you mean it's ignored, I doubt anybody understand what you meant. Thanks Hdayejr 18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed this paragraph in response to this comment. I hope the result is clearer! (As a result, I had to split off a sentence on a different topic into its own paragraph.) Phdtop (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probability chart

The probability chart of winning Bonus Lingo (current version) indicates that the probability of winning with eight draws is 99.9%. However, with eight draws, 20 [12+8] of the 25 numbers will be covered; the only way 20 of the 25 numbers can be covered WITHOUT a Lingo occurring is if one of the main diagonals is uncovered, and the fact that the center square is covered to begin with prevents that scenario. Does that not mean that the probability of a Lingo having attained eight draws is certain? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallpriest9 is correct, as long as the Bonus Lingo board always has the center ball covered. That, in turn, is true as long as every Bonus Lingo board continues (as has been the case so far) to be a rotation and/or reflection of every other board. I would recommend that the probability chart be changed. If the situation ever changes, it can be noted and changed back. Phdtop (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently airing episodes no longer current?

The Special Episodes section contains the statement that "A series of special competitions is now airing on GSN for the first time. Notably successful players from the fourth season face off against pairs of winners from the 2005 online Lingo tournament at GSN.com." I have the impression that this series ended some time ago. Am I right? If so, the sentence should be edited to reflect this fact. Phdtop (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Bonus Lingo

I don't know why the only two pictures in the article are not meant to illustrate how the game is played but rather an insignificant mistake in their software. I think I might take out the first photo because it is useless and probably confusing to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I'll try to add more photos. --Char645 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can verb conjugations be correct answers?

Somewhere in the section 'Unusual situations', it says the following Sometimes unusual or obscure words are used as correct answers or contestant guesses. The word "LINGO" is frequently guessed, and has been the correct answer more than once. Words of a sexual nature are never correct, but they have been guessed by several contestants.

First, it does not define whether conjugations of verbs are legal. Since I am from the Netherlands and as such am not able to watch US Lingo, I don't know myself whether those are legal or not. In the Dutch version, verb conjugations may be contestant guesses, but they are never correct answers. In contrast, plural forms of nouns can be correct answers in the Dutch version.

Second, I think that the paragraph from 'Unusual situations' quoted above should be placed in a more general section somewhat earlier in the Lingo article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn600 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)