Jump to content

Talk:Wheel of Fortune (US game show)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Turn Order Question

Lets say the red person solves puzzle two, does the yellow person start the next puzzle or does the red person start it? --NightKev 04:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the current article. I think it covers this. But to answer your question: The color that starts the next round is determined not by who solves the puzzle, but who originally started the earlier round. Thus, If blue started Round 1, red starts Round 2, and yellow starts Round 3. Currently, a Toss Up Puzzle determines who starts Round 4, since each player has had a chance to start a round. Any subsequent rounds follow the format above.
-- trlkly 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Buzzer signaling incorrect response has changed as well

The buzzer signaling that a certain letter is not on the puzzleboard has changed over the years. This buzzer is also used in the "Final Spin" round indicating that 5 seconds are up. It sounded much different during the 1980's than it does now.Dodgerdave 05:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Old, unsectioned comments

Is the UK version still going? I haven't seen it in about 3 years, yet don't know if it's been cancelled yet or not. BillyH 12:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

A mention of the many parodies of this show (i.e. Wheel of Misfortune) would be interesting on this page. 66.56.129.4 1:48, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Here's a tricky question: Does anyone know how the wheel spinning works? Like, could you concievably aim away from Bankrupts, or if there some sort of mechanism that makes the tension of the wheel random or something, to prevent contestants from cheating? --Headcase 05:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wheel is set to uniform tension. One could definitely attempt skill shots... which is exactly what Pat Sajak has been doing for the final spin the last 23 years. Ever notice how many of his spins end up on or close to the $5000 wedge? Gus 01:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I think that either the wheel is fixed so Sajak gets the $5000 almost everytime just to get the suspense. I also think it's unfair that they do this just to get more money and higher ratings.

(About "fixing" the wheel — There is a rumor that this is what happens, but I don't know whether that's true or not. Ask the WoF staff. Thanks, The Cougar)

Who should I ask?

Who on the WoF staff, I don't know. I am not affiliated with WoF in any way. Thanks again.

I don't know who to ask either. So, should I just assume that Pat is a lucky man or what?

The wheel is actually a 1000-pound-plus mechanism. Spinning it requires a level of effort similar to pulling the crank on a lawn mower. As a former contestant, I can tell you that you're not allowed to try for skill shots. Your spin is supposed to be random. You get a few chances to spin the wheel in rehearsal, but not enough to practice aiming for a particular space. This didn't happen during my show, but we were told that if it appears to the staff that you're aiming for a particular space, they stop tape, void your spin, and make you spin again. Pat frequently hits the $5000 space in the Final Spin because he's had more practice spinning the wheel than anyone else. But it's not "fixed" in that sense.

About the old trilon board — what is meant by the "half-trilon": the two spaces on the extreme edges of the board or the corner spaces partially covered by the light border?

Also, why is the sentence "The prize [from the wheel] was lost if he/she landed on "Bankrupt" in the past tense? Doesn't this still happen?

Cleanup

Is there any reason this page needs to be 'cleaned up'? Sure, there's lots of information about the show, but it's been on the air for 30 years- lots of things have changed. Aside from minor grammar changes, it looks fine. 15:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The user who added the cleanup tag, Aralvarez, really didn't leave much of a reason for it and has made no other contributions to this article. I agree that, while the article might be a bit long, it's not bad enough to warrant a 'cleanup' tag. I'm going to remove it for now. -- Shinmawa 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. There's a ton of good information on here, but it's pretty shoddily and unevenly written throughout. I'd clean it up myself, but I just like to complain.
Disagree and will cleanup when I have time. I agree this page has a ton of great information, but is unevenly written. Basically, I'd create a page specific to the U.S. version, plus provide links to new articles for international versions (in keeping with Wikipedia's world POV policy), the 1950s WOF and the ill-advised Wheel 2000. [[Briguy52748 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)]]
Cleanup This really needs to be de-crufted. Kramden4700 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1950s "Wheel of Fortune"

Yes, there was a show in the 1950s called "Wheel of Fortune." However, I removed the below text because it simply had no connection whatsoever to the "Wheel" we all know and love. The format was quite different and did NOT involve any puzzle-solving.

For anyone who is interested in writing a new article for that specific series, I've pasted the text below:

The earliest version of Wheel of Fortune aired for two seasons from 1952 to 1953 on either ABC or NBC. The series was hosted by Todd Russell and announced by Hal Simms. It was black & white during its run. There was no bonus round, and contestants were brought to the stage and the contestants introduced themselves to the audience. This series was a summer replacement show that gave rewards to people who helped others well.

For what it's worth, according to the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows, the 1950s Wheel Of Fortune aired on CBS and not on ABC or NBC. CBSJokersWildFan 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
...um... I know it's probably a little late to say this, but there now is an article on the 1950s Wheel of Fortune, right here. Granted, it's a stub, but... The Green Lantern 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "3500 Lost Turn incident" to Talk

I can't find anything to verify this on Google, and it seems entirely non-notable. I moved it here until someone can confirm it.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 23:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

==The 3500-Lose a Turn Incident==
In an August 1999 episode, a surreal moment in Wheel history occured when the crowd was divided between the top 2 contestants in the third round. When the first contestant, Edward Nott, spun the wheel, half the crowd started chanting "3500", which was the top dollar value on the wheel during that round. In support of the second contestant, Joe Gallanaugh, the other half of the crowd began chanting, "Lose a Turn." Not knowing how to react to the unusual bipartisan crowd support, host Pat Sajak simply chuckled and rolled his eyes.

==Hands Clapping== Just a warning to anyone who gets to participate (as contestant or audience) on WOF. Your hands may end up quite sore at the end of taping. Gee wees, there's way too much hand clapping on this game show. Mightberight/wrong 13:21, 31 October 2005

Wheel of Fortune on DVD!!!!

Since Jeopardy! is on DVD, here's what I would put for the Wheel of Fortune DVD:

* First Syndicated episode (1983)

* Last CBS Television City episode (1995) * First episode from Sony Pictures Studios (1995) * Infamous "$3500-Lose a Turn" Episode

  • $100,000 Bonus Wheel Premiere (2001)

* Current Set Premiere (2004)

I know this seems a bit lengthy, so it could be on 2 disks. But, it could include some AWESOME bonus features, like classic promos (both network and syndicated), behind-the-scenes featurettes, Dolby THX sound, etc. What do you think?

Did the guy who put the first syndicated episode in italics want that in the WOF DVD? I agree with you, buddy. I'll italize the episodes I want. There, that would make a great DVD. 71.111.216.239 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune in Australia and New Zealand

Please do not merge The Australian and New Zealand Versions both different shows both different countries, you dont merge America with Canada do you? Mike 11:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Raymond Lee's answer

The November 7, 2000 airing was interesting especially since the taping was in Washington, DC with it being a very close election between George Bush and Al Gore. Contestant Raymond Lee made it entertaining with his answer to a particular puzzle.

Umm, what was the puzzle and his answer? It's not worth mentioning if you don't actually provide what happened; otherwise, it's like assuming we already know, in which case, why mention it? - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel of fortune (redirect)

...should say something about the "Regnabo, regno, regnavi, sum sine regno" thingy instead of redirecting here. —Home Row Keysplurge 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems that said wheel is not a significant enough factor to warrant its own redirect. Interesting, but if you want to do that, you should start a disambiguation link, yesno? --Dennis The TIger 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I reredirected it to Fortuna (mythology). —Home Row Keysplurge 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, seems like you changed it back. Nevermind then. :) —Home Row Keysplurge 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Typo in edit summary

On my hour-hold edit summary, I wrote "Feel free to remove the summary but please do not merge back in". The word "remove" is a typo. It should be "improve". Georgia guy 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Talk page?

Can this page be cleaned up, especially with questions that have already been answered and/or are answered in the article? This page is becoming almost as long as the article itself. --Goldrushcavi

I'll see what I can do when I get home around 12:10 or so my time (UTC -06:00 right now since daylight saving time as it's called here is in effect). 67.10.111.125 13:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a day and 15 minutes or so late, but I'm going to start doing it. 67.10.111.125 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All-time biggest winners

It's great that we've included the syndicated WOF all-time winners. However, what were the highest totals:

  • For the NBC daytime show (Woolery-era, and then the Sajak-NBC era), and then the Goen-era (1989-1991). Include one-day and three-day undefeated totals here, if known.
Unfortunately, the one for Woolery's version we may never know. Keep in mind that during the time period it was still commonplace to destroy episodes already aired. For the other two versions, I honestly do not know. 67.10.111.125 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know this one either, but if your guesstimate is correct, that would put Terry's $72,400 loss in 1985 mentioned in the article as higher than the biggest win in this time period. 67.10.111.125 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To User:67.10.111.125 — First, I moved around your answer a little bit, so that our entries are kept separate. I'm sure someone out there does know the answer, or can answer based on surviving episodes. The $64,000 winner early in the syndicated run (1983-1984 season most likely, during the shopping era), I would think happened during a series of rounds by a dominating/lucky contestant, not just one round. [[Briguy52748 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)]]
Briguy52748 - Thanks for letting me know you moved it. After all, everything on Wikipedia is pretty much subject to mutilation. At least I've been notified that you moved one of my answers. --67.10.111.125 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why has someone added names of those who may won $100,000 in the bonus round(example the 5/12/06 when there was no $100K winner) and Even the names of those for Season 24 who made have won the top prize,when i do know that the show is in summer hitaus and won't begin taping until July at the latest and how does this person know these facts are correct.
  • I added an item about the biggest winner on the daytime version, but it's from a source that isn't always reliable, and I haven't independently verified it. JTRH 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Road shows

A while back, some fella removed a section discussing WOF's road shows. Any reason why it was taken out? After all, WOF is one of those shows that frequently goes "on the road." [[Briguy52748 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)]]

Title Card

JEOPARDY! had is title card updated to the current one. Why is WOF's still an old one?

Well, maybe WOF doesn't have a current title card available for this website. I've got 2 bits of information for you. They're not that bright and you're not that dumb. (Based on an Alex Trebek line) 71.111.232.40 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Red-Letter Days

I remember these from when I watched the show at 4 years old; sometimes, some letters in the puzzle would be red instead of black (the letters were still turned, not touched, back then). I don't remember what the significance was, though, but it could merit adding to this article. Max22 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The red letters formed a scrambled word which was the basis of a home viewer contest.JTRH 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In some seasons, the red-letter puzzle premise was the same, but instead of a home viewer contest, in-studio contestants could win bonus money by unscrambling the word. Wario2006 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Direction of wheel

According to the talk page so far, you cannot try skill shots on the Wheel. I have another question about spinning the wheel--I've noticed that it is always spun clockwise (at least on the versions I got a chance to see in part). My question is: Is this a strict rule or could a contestant spin counterclockwise if he or she wanted? (If I remember correctly, there'd be a late mid-90's episode where a contestant tried to spin counterclockwise but Pat said it's supposed to be clockwise, but that was a long time ago, I could be wrong, and I would have been between five and seven years old at the time if I'm right.)

I'm the former contestant who made the comment about skill shots. I don't remember specifically being told to spin clockwise, but I remember an even older episode than the one mentioned above -- the contestant spun the wheel counterclockwise and they actually stopped the wheel and made her spin again the "right" way. JTRH 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely everything on the show is covered in the rulebook. For example, they specify that the vowels are A, E, I, O, and U. Not that they'd expect anyone to forget that, but to make it clear that you can't use Y as a vowel. They have to write everything down, given that there are potentially many thousands of dollars at stake, and they have to have a contingency or a clear answer for absolutely anything that could occur, so someone doesn't complain that they were cheated or disadvantaged. JTRH 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Which episode was it? Was it during the days with the CGI circles that made the wheel (1989-1992) or was it with all the dressed-up spaces on the board (1992-1994)? 71.111.216.239 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a separate page for the daytime version?

I've been writing a lot of comparisons between the current version of the show and the old daytime version (NBC/CBS/NBC). Rather than going back and forth between the two on each topic (bonus rounds, wheel values, etc.), it might be clearer if we gave the daytime version its own page. Anyone agree? JTRH 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a separate page for the daytime version, linked from the show's history section at the top of the main page. Anyone who'd like to clean up now-redundant references on the main page is welcome to give it a shot. JTRH 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I say there is no need to make articles for various versions of the same show, unless the format was drastically changed. --TonicBH 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The two versions had enough differences that it was much clearer to have a separate page for daytime rather than have the main page go back and forth between the two on every point. I still haven't cleaned up the existing references to the daytime show on the main page.JTRH 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, both series had shopping until they went to all-cash (1987-1988 season in Syndication, 1989 when the daytime series moved to CBS), so to be honest there is very little difference between them. If anything, you could mention the early days how players could shopping, but the article itself needs a bit of cleanup. --TonicBH 19:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The two versions of the show had different values on the wheel (players on the nighttime show could win much more than on the daytime), different bonus round formats, different hosts, etc. I put a list of differences on the separate daytime page, but I'm reluctant to edit it all out of the main page as well. I don't want to just arbitrarily remove a lot of other people's contributions. But then, I'm new to wikipedia.JTRH 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally think making seperate articles for game shows that had very little difference in format is not wise. For instance, you could make seperate articles about the many game shows titled Break the Bank, but it would not be wise to make seperate articles for versions of, oh say, Family Feud for instance, since the format's been roughly the same since 1976, with only minor changes in hosts, rules and sets.
And I think Wheel here is an example of the latter. Sure, the show had different hosts, but the bonus rounds were the same (pick a prize with a star onto it, until the five prizes on stage motif, then the "WHEEL" cards which were there until the early 2000's), the scoring might've been different, but who cares? It'd be like making an article for the Daytime The Price is Right and the old Nighttime syndicated Price, when the only differences was the host and some of the games. It would look silly, unnecessary, and would look a bit cluttered. But hey, if you can make a very good article out of the Daytime version, then go for it. --TonicBH 06:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the parent page was tagged as too long, I've moved some of the info on the daytime show to the page I created. There are several links to it from the parent page.JTRH 01:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Swap Am Game Show with WoF

Should we swap Wheel of Fortune (American game show) and Wheel of Fortune around? Pronoun 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

strategy

There needs to be a paragraph on the game's strategy. There is not much strategy, but here are some observations.

1) At the start of a puzzle, contestants may choose more common letters because the object is not to lose a turn.

2) When few letters are revealed, a contestant might choose letters that form compound consonants in order not to lose a turn. For example, t_ _ choose "h" to form th_ if you think the word is "the." Hopefully there is a second benefit: there may be a second h in the puzzle that will help solve the puzzle.

3) During mid-puzzle, if the player is close to the solution, save unrevealed multiple consonants until you land on a large money value on the wheel.

4) During mid-puzzle on low spins, choose single consonants that will give the other contestants the least help in solving the puzzle--in case you lose a turn.

5) when you are confident in the solution, don't waste your money on buying any more vowels. That lowers your cash and helps your competitors. (Some contestants do not follow this advice.)

6) If you know the solution and there are no more unrevealed multiple consonants, solve the puzzle. This is because it is not worth the bankrupt or lose turn risk. Exceptions: if you are slightly less than the money leader, you may need a couple of more spins to gain the lead to go to the bonus round. Also, if you have a free spin, you can avoid losing your turn.

6b) don't solve the puzzle before revealing all multiple consonants.

7) In the bonus round, choose among the more common nonstandard letters that seem to fit the standard revealed letters, but then put those letters out of your mind, and when solving, think of the other letters that you didn't choose. etc.

  • It would be nice to have a strategy section, but from seeing the few episodes from the recent seasons, it seems that the producers discourage some of the aforementioned strategies. Many of the contestants pick mutiple-frequency consonants when they hit low numbers or prizes--this would be easier on the show's budget than a contestant who waits for a higher dollar amount to call a multiple-frequency letter. Wario2006 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune set evolution

I wouldn't mind some of the serious wikipedians working on this page commenting on this pages nomination.

I do not see the information as to WOF's set being non-notable. I do think that perhaps it could be better named. Wheel of Fortune set (American TV game show) perhaps?--ZayZayEM 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{toolong}} into top of an article

I added this template because this article is getting very long, and some sections were so long that the article needs its own spinoffs. I think because 1983 syndication is more well-known than 1975 daytime version, either sections need down-trimming or their own split. --Gh87 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding {{cleanup-section}} for "Versions" section

I merged the "Wheel of Fortune 2000" section into "Versions" section, but I don't know what to do with it. So I added the tab to hope someone cleans it up into a better entry. --Gh87 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Split to History of W. o. F.

After reading some of the article, it seems that it contains a lot of history. Perhaps the article could be shortened by moving the history to a History of Wheel of Fortune article. -- VGF11 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added Template:Split-apart to this article according to the above reasoning. -- VGF11 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to incorporate the historical material into my page on the old daytime show, but I don't want to move someone else's work onto a page that I created without discussing it first.JTRH 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the history isn't just in the "History" section - it's in several other sections, such as "Free Spin" and "Buying a vowel." -- VGF11 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited down a lot of it in several of those sections as well. Let me know what you think of the changes.JTRH 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It's much better, but still quite lengthy. -- VGF11 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, the article is not currently long enough to warrant splitting it. —Centrx→talk • 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It does need re-organization though. —Centrx→talk • 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So....consensus is against the split? -- VGF11 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

....It's been almost a month, so I'll remove the tag. -- VGF11 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing the Category section?

I've edited down quite a lot of the page since it was tagged as too long. The single biggest thing remaining is the exhaustive list of puzzle categories. Would someone like to take a shot at editing that? -- JTRH 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried editing the page as well. I think the puzzle categories should stay but got rid of the examples and descriptions for the ones that seemed self-explanatory. Apparently, 50 kb is not considered too long but 51 kb is; thus, I removed the tag since the distinction seems somewhat arbitrary. I also removed the split tag because I feel the history is an integral part of the show; however, it might be appropriate to move some of the 1975-81 historical information to the existing separate page about the daytime show. 65.27.233.132 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)DAP

Though the length tag may be arbitrary, the article is still extremely long (see WP:SIZE). As for the split, the history is integral to the show; however, this integral history could be placed in a separate article. This would probably solve the length problem. It would also allow readers not interested in the history to skip it, and others that want to know the history to find a separate article dedicated to it. -- VGF11 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reinserting the split tag due to the above reasoning. See Wikipedia:Summary Style. -- VGF11 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The length of this article is now at 55 kb, so I'm reinserting the Template:toolong. A split or major reorganization is necessary for this article. -- VGF11 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Comment

Was the comment titled "Cleanup" vandalized?

Is there any kewler than the WHEEL OF FORTUNE!!!!!!!reason this page needs to be 'cleaned up'? Sure, there's lots of information about the show, but it's been on the air for 30 years- lots of things have changed. Aside from minor grammar changes, it looks fine. 15:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

-- VGF11 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, by looking at the page history. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this article further, by moving most daytime-specific material and references to the separate daytime article. I also suggest creating a separate article for the slot machines. 65.27.233.132 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)DAP

Show records

I looked at the article's history log, and sometimes users can't accept that there were 11 $100,000 winners. So eventually, they acted out as a controversy that they edit the article, and then others consider it disruption. How can we deal with this matter here? --Gh87 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to "deal with it," unfortunately. I just correct it every time someone changes it. If necessary, I'll track down the source (or get official confirmation from the show) and include the documentation.JTRH 13:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are now 14 $100,000 winners: this season's were Dec 5 (was new solo record), Feb 7 (current solo record), and Feb 13 (team effort; did not set new record). I made the change yesterday and had to do it again because someone reverted it. DAP

That statistic pertains to the $100,000 prize in the Bonus Round, not the number of people who've won over $100,000 on the show. Becca Rhine, the Feb. 7 contestant, won $61,000 in the main game and a $67,000+ Winnebago in the bonus round. She did set a new one-day solo player record, but she didn't add to the $100,000 statistic. JTRH 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wild Card?

"If nobody earns the Wild Card after three rounds, it is removed from the wheel, except in the case of time remaining for regular play after the 3rd Toss-Up. A contestant who reaches the Bonus Round and still has the Wild Card may use it to select an extra consonant, in addition to the standard three (plus one vowel)."

So if there's time to begin a 4th round that isn't sped-up, the wild card remains? So when is it removed from the wheel? Only for Pat's spin? Do they really go through and take stuff off the wheel for Pat's spin? Or do they take stuff off the wheel only if the speed-up spin will start the round? (I know they clearly pre-set it to attempt to land on 5k on many occasions)

Either way, this seems like a redundant statement and should probably be changed to "If it has not yet been won, it is removed from the wheel if a round begins as a speed-up round"

|I clarified the phrasing here, and also edited "Mystery Round" because a car was offered on the November 6, 2006 episode. 65.27.233.132 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)DAP|

"At the start of round four, the wheel is intentionally pre-positioned to increase the odds of the host hitting the top dollar space ($5000, plus the added $1000) should the speed-up round begin before the first spin. Woolery and Sajak have both been known for frequently hitting the top dollar space on the Final Spin."

I could be wrong, but I never noticed this pre-positioning until, say, the last 5 years when almost every night it's been $5000. Back in the 90's I recall him hitting it with skill, but I don't recall it being virutally nightly like it is now... am I mistaken? TheHYPO 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates, names

This article requires significant standardization. I reccomend that either years or seasons be standardized, and not be mixed either a) "Starting in the 24th season..." b) "Starting in the season 24..." c) "Starting in the 2006..." d) "Starting in the 24th season (2006)..." e) "Starting in the 24th season (2006-7)..."

etc. There are sentances in the article say "from [year] until season [x]..." - which makes the timeline very difficult to follow. Either years or seasons should be chosen as the 'primary' time chosen. I don't know how the dates translate well enough to make the changes myself, nor do I want to be the one to choose the best format for the article I don't edit.

Also, half the time a note will say that "Pat" or "Vanna" do something, and the other half it will say "host" and "co-host". (also, Pat and Vanna should be Sajak or White as per proper encyclopedic formats). We haven't had a different (regular) host or co-host other than Pat and Vanna in decades. I think the article can refer specifically to them by name, adding Woolery in where it's historically relevant. (I don't think anyone will be confused by the 'speed up round section' if it says Sajak instead of 'host' and wonder what went on when it was Woolery hosting... a general note could also be made elsewhere in the article as to what changed when they swapped hosts and everything else can be assumed to have been the same under the two hosts. Thoughts?

Hopefully someone can address these issues. TheHYPO 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to address these issues today. I also moved the daytime tie rules and the game show emcee contestant week from 1980 to the daytime show page since they never applied to the nighttime show. 65.27.233.132 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)DAP

e) "Starting in the 24th season (2006-7)..." seems to be the clearest format. -- VGF11 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Face Away During Commercial Breaks

"Today, contestants are required (off-camera) to face away from the board during commercial breaks while the new puzzles are set up." Maybe in the old day, but with an electric board, it can't be required today, can it? Maybe for the wedges, namely the mystery round, and if so should be reflected as such.

Yes, it is required. During the breaks, the contestants turn away from the wheel, have their makeup touched up, are offered water, and are briefed on the next round. Behind their backs, the new prize wedges are put on the wheel and the next puzzle is set up. JTRH 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the prize wedges, but what is there to set up on the puzzle board? I think it should be reworded to say "while the cash and prize wedges for the next round are set up."

I edited the description of this phenomenon to reflect current realities. 65.27.233.132 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)DAP

Vandalism needs to be reverted

Some recent inconspicuous vandalism has occurred (as well as some obvious vandalism) in a series of edits which also may have helped the article. Since I don't know enough about the show to know which edits are helpful and which aren't, and because I don't have time to check right now, someone with more knowledge of the show needs to check the recent changes on this article occurring before this comment. -- VGF11 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Show records now in tables

I have placed all the show records in a table at the bottom of the page. If anyone sees a $100,000 win that is record-breaking by solo or team players, it is proper to place it in in the appropriate columns. Thanks, --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge in the 1975 show?

There appears to be quite a bit of duplication between Wheel of Fortune (US game show) and Wheel of Fortune (1975 US game show). Plus the names of the articles aren't really very clear. Could we maybe have a main article which covers the show and its history and then have 2 sub articles covering the daytime and nighttime versions of the show? Ewlyahoocom 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I created the page on the daytime version because the parent article was getting very long (longer than it is now, in fact) and there was a lot of going back and forth between the two. I called it "Wheel of Fortune's daytime version" or something similar, but someone changed the name to the current one in accordance with what they stated were Wikipedia naming conventions. Most of the "ancient history" is in the daytime article and most of the current material pertains only to the nighttime show, since it's been the only one around for 15 years now. I agree that there's still a lot of duplication between the two, because people keep adding material about one or the other to both articles. I'm not really sure how to manage it other than a complete editorial overhaul.JTRH 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Wheel of Fortune (US game show) → Wheel of Fortune (1983 US game show) — This article becomes more likely in regards with primetime syndicated version of this show, in spite of some information about daytime version. Gh87 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

  1. SUPPORT - then replace Wheel of Fortune (US game show) with a disambig linking to both US version. pmppk 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Instead of just moving this one I think these articles really need to be rethought out e.g. a main page, a sub-page about the old daytime show, and a subpage about the new nighttime show. Ewlyahoocom 05:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wheel of Fortune (1983 game show) would be shorter and dab fully. The UK version could be renamed to Wheel of Fortune (1988 game show). Vegaswikian 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Ewlyahoocom. All of the articles pertaining to the show need to be reorganized in some way. I suggest that we hold off on renaming the main article until then. I would keep the national labels, because labeling the US version with "1983" and the UK with "1988" wouldn't be helpful to those who are looking for a particular national version unless they happen to know the premiere years of each.JTRH 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • However that is not the purpose of the disambiguation in the title. It is not for the purpose of adding formation but to disambiguate in a concise way. Dabing the various versions should not impact the name for a generic article and doing those now would not be a problem. Vegaswikian 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Show records questions?

One thing I would like to know is a record of the biggest Bankrupt effect, that is, when the player accumulated a large amount in the round and then hit Bankrupt. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates

The fact that this page is somewhat inconsistent in its references to the daytime show leads to a discrepancy in dates. Pat started as host of Wheel of Fortune (on the daytime show) in 1981. Vanna started as hostess (also on the daytime show) in 1982. The nighttime show premiered in 1983, which is listed as the show's premiere date in the Infobox (not the original version's 1975 debut). So the current version of the infobox lists P&V as both starting in 1983. That's technically inaccurate, and the box doesn't specify that 1983 is the debut of the nighttime version, but it looks strange to have a listing that Pat started in 1981, Vanna started in 1982, and the show started in 1983. Any suggestions as to how to deal with this? I think this should be cleared up as part of the general editorial overhaul that most of us seem to agree is needed by both the main show page and the daytime show page.JTRH 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category subpage, slot machines, and deletion of length tag

I went ahead and moved the list of puzzle categories to a new subpage. I moved the slot machine information to the subpage on video and arcade versions of the show. Since the main article is now down to 45 KB, I'm going to remove the length tag as well.JTRH 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick favor

I have updated the show records table to add color as to what colored podium the contestant or team were standing on prior to that record being set (i.e. player 1 is red, player 2 is yellow, and player 3 is blue). Can someone watch these episodes (if you have a tape of the record being set) and determine what colored podium the contestant or team was standing behind, and for the returning champions, determine the colored podium he/she stood on for his/her last game? Thanks. --DFW 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of what possible encyclopedia interest would that be? Lambertman 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some people might want to know what colored podium they were on. Although my knowledge about these records can only go back to 1992-93 (CBS Studio 33), I have no idea where they stood. If you have a tape of the records being set, just go to the TD tag for the contestant's name and the date and add "bgcolor=#xxxxxx", the Xs standing for the HTML color code. For example, if he/she stood on the red podium, replace it with #FF0000. If yellow, then #FFFF00. If blue, it's #0000FF. For the returning champions, use any of those three colors the champ stood on for his/her last game. --DFW 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that the color of the winning contestant's podium really isn't altogether relevant. Furthermore, black text on a dark blue background is extremely difficult to read. JTRH 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The lighter blue makes the text slightly more legible. However, researching which podium each record-setting contestant stood at would require a great deal of effort to come up with a relatively insignificant detail, and if some of them aren't available, you'll have a partially-colored-in chart forever. JTRH 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Wheel do a Canadian version in English?

With Deal or No Deal (Canada) already having good viewership and hoping to produce more in the future, should Wheel Of Fortune begin to follow suit and do a taping of five shows in Toronto? Possibly at the Toronto Convention Centre's John Bassett theatre.

I can tell you for a fact that Vanna White would be allowed to touch the letter board, only if the host is either Canadian born, or has a relative who is Canadian, under rules on a Canadian game show that you need at least one host to have some Canadian content.

The money would be Canadian and all winnings would be tax free, so if someone wins $100,000 in the bonus round, they would get $100,000. Let's hope SONY will do such a thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

It would be easier to create a new version of the show for English-language Canadian audiences than it would be logistically to move production of the US show to Canada for a week -- they'd have to have access to Canadian funds for prize payouts, get everything and everyone involved with production through Customs and back, etc., and as the above poster pointed out, you have to have some degree of Canadian content as well. Besides, most of the road trips the show does are to areas where they do particularly well in the ratings (or would like to), and since the US Nielsen ratings don't cover Canadian viewership, there's no benefit in that area. JTRH 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange thing after first commercial break

Has anyone ever noticed all the strange things that happen after the first commercial break, usually right before they have those quick in-game ads for head on etc???? I've seen Pat dancing with a skeleton, standing on his hear (3-6-07) and drinking booze (3-5-07)!! Is this part of some viewer loyalty program or something? This may not be the right place for me to post this but I think there should be some mention of this on the wiki

Apparently, he always does something "wacky" at the beginning of the Jackpot Round. JTRH 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WILD card citation

The proof on the WILD card can be used after calling a vowel happened for the first time on the March 28, 2007 episode where a contestant landed on $3,500 when spinning their wheel on their current turn. The contestant opted to buy a vowel and because their own arrow is still at $3,500 the WILD card was turned in to call an extra consonant without even touching the wheel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Mass of Wheel

It says here that the Wheel weighs 4,000 pounds. Good to know if I want to lift it with a crane or something. If I want to spin it, I'd like to know its moment of inertia about the usual axis.  :-) Any ideas?—Dah31 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the wheel is cylindrical, its moment of inertia is half of the product of its mass and the square of its radius. Unfortunately, you can't determine the wheel's moment of inertia if you don't know its radius. :-( --Brandon Dilbeck (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wheel changes for 25th Anniversary

To add variety to the wheel, make the show even more exciting, and celebrate the show's early history, I would like to propose the following future configuration for the wheel. There are too many (up to 6 of 24) $300 spaces and only 3 of 24 wedges end in '50', so the constant "x-hundred" utterances can get monotonous.

Maybe there are show execs capable of implementation who visit this site and might be reading this...

Proposed basic configuration:

$300 (red), $500 (green), $800 (orange), $550 (purple), $400 (yellow), $650 (pink), $900 (red), $500 (blue), $300 (green), $900 (pink), Bankrupt (black), $950 (purple), $400 (yellow), $750 (blue), Lose A Turn (white), $800 (red), $350 (purple), $450 (pink), $700 (green), $850 (orange), $600 (purple), top dollar value, $300 (yellow), $600 (blue)

Only four main wedges would need to be restyled: $650, $750, $850, and $950 (to go with current $350, $450, and $550), all of which appeared at some point in the early 80's or as part of car/truck turntable displays. Three of them would replace current $300 spaces and the other would replace a $600, which are the most frequent amounts currently on the show. Also, "$500" should be printed on the empty part of the Jackpot space, for clarity. The locations of Free Spin and Wild Card could conveniently remain as-is, while the Gift Tag could move to one of the two $400 spaces.

At the high end, the top dollar values could be $2500 (Round 1), $3500 (Round 2), $5000 (Round 3), and $10000 (Round 4+). I would propose dropping Bankrupt/10000/Bankrupt (which could partially help with budget issues), since there is already a special prize introduced in Round 1, and just use the back of the wedge (restyled for HD) in the later rounds. Another way to help with the budget would be to raise the price of vowels to $500, which, compared with the new wheel, would not differ much from how $250 compared with dollar values on the wheel during the early '90s. The decision to buy a vowel would involve more strategy than it does today (a good thing), and still not be as difficult as it was during the early years of the show (a bad thing). Finally, I would retain the Mystery space over the green $500 space (or bring back sequin green $1000 in that location) after the Mystery Round, since it seems silly to me to introduce a four-digit amount only to take it away. Of course, the wedge would be worth $2000, which was the old daytime top dollar value, in the speed-up round.

Anyone with me?

65.27.236.224 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)DAP

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten Pound - Looks like they didn't follow your advice... the 25 wedge and BIG MONEY round are big changes indeed. I haven't heard anything about $650, $750, $850 and $950 so I'll assume they weren't interested; perhaps they've gotten rid of $350, $450 and $550 too (I've seen realistic CG versions of the wheel without them in recent seasons). I've also seen message board rumors that BR/10000/BR, JACKPOT or Mystery could be toast, but nothing about reversed $10000 in round 4 (perhaps they're saving it for Season 30...) Someone wants a $4000 wedge in Round 3 but they weren't a contestant, and that seems to be more of a temporary fix for two rounds of $3500. Someone else mentioned the possibility that Mystery got moved to Round 4 and beyond (bringing back the possibility of a $2000 final spin but maybe eliminating that of $1500, unless $450 or $550 were changed to $500 or the locations moved)), which would be very interesting: a "True Mystery Round", where what was under the $1000 *and* whether or not the round would go to speed-up would both be mysteries, and make the contestant's decision whether to flip even more complicated!

~DAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.50.123 (talk) 19:38, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I put the unreferenced tag on this article; almost nothing is referenced, and yet this article is a hefty 50 kilobytes. Let's find some references, people! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is simple fact, like the configuration of the wheel and the show records. Some material that I've contributed to this page, such as the statement that any winnings over $200,000 are donated to charity, comes from the show's rule book, which is given to contestants the day of their taping but which doesn't leave the studio and isn't online. (I'm a former contestant, so I've read it.) There's no way to provide a verifiable citation for it. And yet taking it out as uncited would mean removing a lot of relevant (and accurate) information about the show. Suggestions? JTRH 00:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And this is what the crux of the original research issue is. Using your example, you can remember that when you were a contestant that the Official Rules contained a $200,000 winnings ceiling. How would you know if the policy changes? Since you were preparing for a national television appearance, would your nerves affect your memory? How do I know you are a former contestant and not a delusional schitzophrenic? Therefore the facts are called into question. If you post the information on a blog, it can be judged as to whether it's a reliable source, but when it floats freely in Wikipedia without attribution, the reader is forced to consider the information unreliable. I'm not trying to be deletionist, but how relevant is informtion such as the show's winnings records? If the show itself doesn't think it's relevant to the enjoyment of its viewers, why is it not on their website? Just because it can be edited by anyone does not make Wikipedia a collection of indiscriminate information. There is just too much fancruft that does not contribute to one's understanding of the topic.—Twigboy 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Information on the show's winnings limits is relevant to a section on record-breaking winners. I don't think that's any more "indiscriminate information" than anything else on the page. As far as reliability/verifiability are concerned, I can't "prove" or "document" what I'm saying, because the information isn't publicly available, nor can I "prove" or "document" that I'm a reliable source of the information. (I wouldn't automatically trust a blog entry any more than I would trust the same statement made for the first time on Wikipedia.) But if the policy is construed to mean that "original research" is anything, no matter how minor or factually simple ("there are three contestants, at red, yellow and blue podiums"), that isn't authenticated by a citation connecting it to some sort of outside source, then Wikipedia loses a lot of useful information. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, but the fact is, despite the best efforts of people like yourself, Wikipedia will never be as reliable as a published source where people contribute under their own names and there's some sort of quality control (to say nothing of vandalism prevention). If I were writing a doctoral dissertation on Wheel of Fortune, I wouldn't use this page as a source. I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for any doctoral dissertation (I'm writing one, but not on Wheel of Fortune). But as a source of quick, simple information about something as inconsequential as a TV game show, I think what we have is quite sufficient. JTRH 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: I meant enforceable quality control, above.JTRH 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully understand the frustration. There is much that I could contribute based on my worldly knowledge. But Wikipedia is not a primary source — in fact, no encyclopedia ever was or ever would be. As for losing useful information, I'd have to argue that useful information would exist somewhere. Your example above, cited, would be there are three contestants[1], at red, yellow and blue podiums[2]. That's without even trying! It can be done. The record winner is cited on the official site (others are not). Please don't take this the wrong way, but I would recommend that, if there is information that just does not pass the policies, you perhaps should set up a fan site on Geocities where you can put this information online.
I know it sounds excessively rigid, but let's take an actual example from this article. One editor slipped in a reference about W acting as a vowel, and you reverted. That editor then countered with an assertion in the W article: an argument has been made that in words such as "low" or "bow" the letter W represents a vowel. This is an unsourced assertion as to who is making such an argument, so the W article was marked with [citation needed]. In this case WP:CITE comes to the rescue!
It's a challenge to find sourced, relevant, nontrival information. When one succeeds, the result is refreshing prose that is interesting to read and is recognized by one's peers. —Twigboy 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response, and also thanks for backing me up in my assertion that W is not a vowel in English. :-) JTRH 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone has put a [citation needed] notation on almost every individual sentence in the article, which is probably redundant, since there was already a need for reference/source tag at the top of the page. As previously stated, much of the information in this article is from personal contestant experience (mine and others). Much of the rest has been stated on the show. If every one of these sentences is challenged or removed, the article loses most of its information and meaning, but there's no publicly available "source" to back it up. The rule book isn't public information, and it's impossible to document the episode number or air date on which a particular fact might have been given. So if other editors insist on absolute documentation, this article's about to get a lot shorter. JTRH 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

$2500 space

A couple of us who've edited the page recently seem to have differing memories of when the $2500 space was introduced. I seem to remember it being there in the second round from the syndicated show's beginning, or close to it, but someone else says it didn't debut until 1987. By any chance, is there anyone with a tape of an episode prior to fall 1987 who could double-check that? Thanks. JTRH 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking back to childhood memories of "Wheel", $2500 probably debuted when $175 disappeared with the new Wheel templates in 1986 (Season 3-4), the year before play-for-cash. An episode prior to fall 1986 could prove it was there earlier, but I doubt it - I think the "old" templates were identical in daytime and nighttime except for $5000 (placed over daytime $2000). DAP

If this is still an issue, I can confirm the $2500 space debuted with the switch to all-cash. Lambertman 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

W is not a vowel in the English language

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm not reverting the revert that "Y and W are always considered consonants," but of the examples given in the edit summary, "cwm" is not an English word (Welsh, isn't it?), and the vowel in "bow" is "o". The show's rules specify that Y is a consonant, but they don't mention W, probably because it never occurred to them that they would have a puzzle with "cwm" in it. :) JTRH 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An uncited assertion in W allowed that to creep in. The vowel article clears up the English usage.—Twigboy 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reruns

Since when do game shows show reruns? I remember the spring break episode last week thrusday re-aired last week friday. whats up with that?199.80.117.25 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Many game shows do reruns during the summer, since fewer people are going to be watching then. This decreased audience makes it financially imprudent to produce new episodes over the summer. Most of the game shows on the air currently do this. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifying show records

The statistics on the biggest winners have been either provided or verified by the show. The statistic on the woman who couldn't cash in on the $60K+ has been verified by several sources. Could the people who added "biggest amount lost to a Bankrupt" and "biggest amount lost to a mis-solve" please verify that those are, in fact, record amounts? Otherwise, I'm going to remove them as unverified. Thanks.JTRH 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed-Up Round

To explain my removal of the asterisked comment about the Wild Card being removed prior to the Speed-Up Round: the statement was redundant, since by definition nothing but cash values counts during the Speed-Up. Somehow the edit was saved before I finished inserting my comment. JTRH 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:$10,000 Space from 1995.jpg

Image:$10,000 Space from 1995.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 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised the rationale. Hopefully this is suitable.—Twigboy 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:$5000 Space.jpg

Image:$5000 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 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:$5000 Space.jpg

Image:$5000 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 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel and Monday Night Football

Wheel is still the top-rated syndicated show despite the fact that MNF is "syndicated" to broadcast stations in the home markets of the two teams in that night's game. Everywhere else in the country, MNF is a cable program and not a syndicated broadcast offering, as Wheel is everywhere in the country. Barring some sort of official documentation that Nielsen considers MNF to be a syndicated show as opposed to a cablecast (which would change the meaning of syndication to the point that it renders the term meaningless), I've reverted the statement that Wheel is no longer the top-rated syndicated program in the country. Feel free to disagree. JTRH 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible that the broadcast-only penetration in just two markets of Monday Night Football would rival the ratings of Wheel of Fortune in nearly all markets. Since the local stations buy single episodes of MNF, and may not buy the entire series, that further challenges the syndicated definition. Such a broadcast would be designated a special even if it ranked high in the national rankings, and therefore the series as a whole would not be considered. That's not to say that MNF might outrank WoF on any given night in a single market, but that is not what is being asserted. Short version: Agree with JTRH's rationale.—Twigboy 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Apparently Nielsen has changed the classification of Monday Night Football as syndicated (even this source has no justification for it), but I have to think that Wheel has been ranked #1 in the season rankings, because it is certainly conceivable that any program could mount a one-week takeover of the top slot. Therefore, even though Nielsen has questionable rationale, the answer still remains the same: Wheel is the top syndicated program until toppled in the season rankings.—Twigboy 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:News wildcard.gif

Image:News wildcard.gif 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 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article

Since there was both a daytime and nighttime version of Wheel, does anyone htink we should retitle this article "Wheel of Fortune (US nighttime game show)"? Or have we come far enough since the daytime show's cancellation in 1991 that people would wonder "why call it the nighttime show"? Just a thought...

--JoBrLa 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is the original Wheel article. The daytime show article was created as a spinoff from it. I think people are far more familiar with the current version, so I don't think there's a reason to qualify this page's title with "nighttime." JTRH 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Thanks anyway. --JoBrLa 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wheel of Fortune 25th Anniversary.jpg

Image:Wheel of Fortune 25th Anniversary.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 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing the change in the speed-up time

It is more grammatically correct, and makes the article more understandable and relevant, to give the current time to solve first (three seconds) and then note that it was originally five seconds. It really doesn't flow well to say the player HAD five seconds and then parenthetically note that it was reduced to three several years ago. Thanks. JTRH 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vowel buying

Two different people have now whacked my expansion of the vowel-buying section, so I won't re-insert it. I do think it's relevant that being told there are no more vowels in the puzzle when only four are revealed means that, if you're paying attention, you know what one of the remaining letters is. But I'll leave it be. JTRH (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just figured out that I had it backwards: being told that there are no more vowels when A, E, I, and O are revealed means there isn't a U. Never mind. :-) JTRH (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In whatever case, the article isn't really the place to detail game strategy. --Bando26 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps briefly stated: The host will indicate to the players if there are no more vowels to purchase in the puzzle, even if all vowel choices have not been exhausted. It's an element of the gameplay, but the implementation of strategy, I agree, goes a bit too far in conveying in encyclopedic tone.—Twigboy (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Article length

The article has once again drawn a {{toolong}} tag. Several subparts (the old daytime version, the wheel's configuration, the list of puzzle categories) have already been split off into their own articles. The evolution of the studio configuration, currently one of the longest parts of the page, was once split off, AfD'ed as not noteworthy, and folded back in here. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what we could split off next, or how else we could substantially reduce the body of the article? JTRH (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Round Question

Does anyone else notice that whenever Pat Sajak spins the wheel for the final/speed round that the pointer almost always lands on or around the $5000 mark? It seems like it happens too often to be a coincidence to me, but maybe I'm just overthinking. Are there any sources to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Before the speedup round, they position the wheel so that Pat is more likely to land on the $5000 space. Even if they didn't do that, Pat's been the host forever, so I would imagine that he's long since learned how to spin skillfully (unlike the contestants). I can't find a source that verifies the wheel positioning however. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

$190,000 won?

Someone won $190,000 on WOF? Or $109,000.

--24.228.70.72 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)nextbarker Nope. It was inaccurate at best and vandalism at worst. It's been reverted. JTRH (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Month of Cash

  • I saw in the edit history that a change was reverted regarding the changeover to cash (an IP editor had said the playing for cash was meant as a week-long promotion). While Lambertman is probably correct in his edit summary that the change was likely meant to be permanent, I wonder if we could say something to the effect of the "play for cash" format was promoted as the "Big Month of Cash" (or whatever it was called) before the rule became permanent. Just an idea. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wheel of Fortune 25th Anniversary.jpg

Image:Wheel of Fortune 25th Anniversary.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit 2/6/08

This thing is getting way too long again, folks. I'm in the process of eliminating a lot of redundant information from the article, by moving the historical stuff to the Notable Changes section at the end (where a lot of it already appears). I'm not taking out anything substantive, just extra mentions of it. For example, if the Changes section discusses when the Bankrupt/$10,000/Bankrupt space moved from Round 3 to Round 2, that doesn't need to also appear in the discussion of the space in the body of the article. JTRH (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many non-free images?

I second User:DJBullfish's placement of a {{non-free}} tag on this page; however, I'm not sure as to which images should be removed. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First, start with any image that merely depicts what something looks like. The green $1,000 space adds no real understanding; whereas the 10K/Bankrupt/10K space is distinctively different in terms of game play (and is also difficult to explain the ⅓-size spaces without a visual). The overhead shot of the wheel is appropriate to the discussion of the gameplay. The question to answer is, does the image add only cosmetic value, or is it necessary to support the text?—Twigboy (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
How does Wikipedia define "excessive or improper"? Is there a specific number of images we should shoot for, or is it a judgment call? Thanks for enlightening me. JTRH (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed three images. The newly-added Surprise image - while I don't have a problem with an image of the Surprise wedge itself, with a glut of unfree images as-is, the article certainly didn't need another one that *also* happened to have image quality issues. I removed the sequined $1,000 Wedge per discussion, as it was mostly decorative and wasn't greatly helping understanding. I also removed the image of the 1980s puzzleboard - there was no point in having two images of the puzzleboard, given both are unfree images. Aspiring to keep only one, I pulled the image of the board from the 1980s - reader understanding would be best served by showing the board as it currently appears. DJBullfish 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I can't put my finger on sources now, the old puzzleboard established the role of Vanna White on the show and received a decent amount of ink when it was retired. Since the discussion of such a major element of the program could be better understood by two images, I think this is appropriate to keep both. I would (but looking for consensus first) remove the Pat-Vanna standup shot, the Double Play token, and the $5,000 space images. The illustration in the "Wheel Configuration" section should move up under "Spinning the Wheel" (although someone check that it is properly licensed). The Big Money Wedge is marginally kept — although it can very easily be summarized as a space that changes value, rather than showing a picture of it (which does not illustrate its changing properties, anyway). Once consensus is reached, I think the next focus should be on pruning this article, such as deleting "Score displays" and everything, yes, everything from "The Wheel's Configuation" through "Episode Status" inclusive (which would take care of another superfluous image).—Twigboy (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to it's unique nature, I'd argue to keep the image of the Double Play token. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder, though, if instead of outright pruning sections of information wholesale if it might not be possible to spin off the stuff about the score displays, set pieces, etc. into a seperate article (akin to the one Jeopardy! has now). Either way it needs to be trimmed out of the current article when possible. Also, I've re-added the image of the old puzzleboard. DJBullfish 06:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a major issue here is that several of these images have been added (by one or more people) with a very broad or unclear definition of "fair use." If we could establish which ones do/don't meet those criteria, that would help us arrive at a consensus decision as to what should stay and go. I'm all in favor of splitting a lot of the information off into sub-articles, but a while ago someone created a sub-article, transferring all of the information about the set into that piece, and it was almost immediately RFD'd as non-notable. Maybe the article on the daytime show (which I created, and which is nowhere near as long as the parent) could be changed into a "history of Wheel of Fortune" article with EVERYTHING that isn't pertinent to the show as it now appears. Thoughts? JTRH (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you run into the same problem, only with THAT article being too long. A Wheel of Fortune page similar in content and *style* to the Jeopardy set article would probably be appropriate - it certainly wouldn't get speedied at least. I'd support a keep in an AfD discussion as long as the article was well-constructed. If a spin-off article is nothing but a bunch of facts tossed together with no cohesion, *that's* when you run into problems. DJBullfish 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As of a moment ago, the main show article is 44KB and the daytime article is 24KB. It seems to me that maybe a third of the content of the main article (let's say history, changes, statistics, etc.) could be moved to the daytime page without making that one too long as well. And yeah, I meant AfD instead of RFD. JTRH (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Having just looked at it again, I think everything starting with "Retired Gameplay Elements" about 2/3 of the way down can be pruned and safely moved to the daytime show page, which can be reformatted as a page on the history of the show. I'm not Wikiproficient enough to know how to change the name of an established article, though. JTRH (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

I'd like to try to establish consensus here in having MiszaBot I automatically archive old threads on the talk page into talk archives - say any comment threads older than a month? DJBullfish 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. Given that a lot of the conversations on this page are about the show and not about the article, is it against Wikipolicy to just delete some old stuff that no one's responded to in a long time? JTRH (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on the month-old threads, all other conversation is stale. Good luck plucking out the recent conversations, as some are just intertwined with other threads. Rather than weeding through it, as JTRH suggests, just archive everything, even the garbage.—Twigboy (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trimming

This is just my opinion, but using the section on "Puzzle Boards" as an example, I have made substantial edits down to the essential information. I think this should carry forward to the rest of the sections, but I don't feel I should be that bold yet. Here is a summary of the section changes.—Twigboy (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and the whole article needs a good trimming. It has a lot of crufty stuff and seeming OR that belongs on a wikia or maybe a game show wiki, but does not fit in here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruftiness

This article has quite a bit of fancruft in it that needs to be cleaned out. Every detail of the show's game play history is not significant, while an actual history on the production of the game, is completely missing. The entire game play section is beyond excessive. Nineteen sections to give a basic overview of how a simply game show works? The game play section needs to likened to the plot or synopsis section of a fictional program, and limited to a brief overview. The entire retired elements section should come out if none if it can be sourced. The stats seem very OR as they are unsourced. The home versions can be shortened into a purely prose merchandise section.

The Wheel's configuration? That is pure cruft and purely unsourced original research. I've AfDed Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration). "The Wheel" section is more than sufficient for discussing the wheel, and at best, verifiable, sourced summary of the wheel configuration is all that is needed. Ditto List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories, which is completely unsourced and unlikely to be able to be well-sourced or wholly accurate as they are not given significant coverage in reliable sources and it has remained unsourced since at least July of 2007.

Notable changes? Who decided they were notable? Where is the sourcing? Theme music should move to an actual production details section and converted to prose. It should be joined by the "Episode status" section, and the sets content. The article is already tagged for having an excessive number of non-free images and I'd have to agree. I'd say six of those images can come out without having any negative affect on the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have a contributor who's a bit enthusiastic about adding images he finds on the Web without much consideration for fair use policies. We've been trying to pare those down as well. The history of the production of the game is found on the companion page about the original daytime version -- Wheel of Fortune (US daytime game show). About a week ago, I started to try to figure out how much of the historical information in this article can be moved over to that page and have the daytime show page reformatted as a page on the history of the show. I haven't had time to work on that lately. JTRH (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...any particular reason the two are kept separate, other than this one being for the night version and that for the day? Beyond that are they the same show? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally, the main show article kept going back and forth between the current (nighttime) show and the daytime version which left the air in 1991. The two shows had a fair number of significant differences. Moving the material on the daytime show to a separate page made the main article flow a lot better. And I would submit that the daytime show merits its own page because it was a popular and successful TV show for 16 years. There are plenty of articles about historical TV shows on Wikipedia. As you can see, most of the material we're discussing has been spun off from the main show article for one reason or another. JTRH (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
They yeah, separate is fine, though it also needs some cruft cutting at least it does have an actual history/production section. :) Where there is shared history, it can probably be copied over here as well. For the spin-off articles, like the two I AfDed...the problem is that they were spun-off when really, it probably should have just been removed all together. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit 2/20/08

I've spent the afternoon brutally whacking about 8 KB off the article. I've removed a lot of information about things that are not current practice on the show, as well as things that wouldn't be verifiable without watching a couple of hundred episodes in someone's spare time (not mine). I'm not through yet. I haven't gotten all the way down the page. As it stands now, the gameplay description is very straightforward and literal. I've removed all references to strategy and historical data from those sections. I'm really sorry if I've brutalized anyone's work or removed anything someone thinks is truly important to the show, but if you look at the number of issues people have noted at the top of the article page (length, notability, sourcing, objectivity, etc., etc.), as well as the fact that two of the sub-articles have been nominated for AfD, somebody had to do something quickly. Please discuss here before reverting or re-inserting something you think I shouldn't have taken out. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: To address concerns about WP:OR, I've boiled most of the material discussed above down to a set of descriptions which are verifiable by watching the show, since I doubt anyone's ever published an academic journal article about the strategy behind buying a vowel. In other words, that's as far as we can go to address the sourcing issue. JTRH (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So far so good :) One thing I just noticed...there are several references for "wheeloffortune.com" which are not linked. These need to be converted to real references, with an an actual link to the page with the information being sourced. Do you know which pages go with which source? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, those need work. I'm not sure exactly where the info is on the WoF site, but finding it and making the references more specific is on the to-do list. JTRH (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, the article is now down to just over half its previous length. Most of it is straight narrative description. I haven't yet touched the "Notable Changes" section, which is the biggest remaining element. I made the suggestion (seen above) a while ago that maybe that could be folded into the daytime show article, and that one re-formatted as a piece on the history of the show (including the daytime version). I don't want to do anything that drastic without some input from other editors. I've whacked enough for one day. What do others think? JTRH (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Re-add the historical data to the Daytime show page, rename to History of Wheel of Fortune. DJBullfish 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I have in mind, but I haven't had a chance to work on that one yet. Of course, as the discussion a few topics above indicates, there's always a possibility of that one becoming as overgrown as this one was. I'm not putting everything back if it goes in the daytime article. After a great deal of serious consideration, I decided that Wikipedia doesn't need to include a description of the color of the Free Spin token used prior to 1989, or the year when the now-outdated eggcrate displays expanded from six to seven characters. Of course, someone out there's probably going to either argue the point, or just re-insert. JTRH (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Free Images

I've replaced the non-free image tag, as the article still has too many. I realized, though, I said see talk but this was said on my talk page not here, so I'm putting this here as well. First, of course, see WP:NONFREE for the guidelines on non-free image use. The basic guidelines, from my experiences in having to address it, is that as few non-free images as possible should be used, and when used they should be limited to only those absolutely necessary for illustrating a section of text. My initial opinion would be to remove the image of Pat and Vanna (from what I've seen, non-free images of living people are almost always considered unnecessary see there are free alternatives available). Ditto the image of contestants row. Most of the wheel images are unneeded, as it isn't really necessary to provide a screen of every special spot. Instead, we need one good image of the wheel as it is, to illustrate how it looks now, then let the prose describe changes. That can also replace almost all of the text of the wheel configuration section. Also, only one image of the board is needed here (especially if the set history article continues to stand alone). Thoughts? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd take out Pat & Vanna, the $5000 space, and the Double Play. I agree with the above about P&V, the DP hasn't been part of the game for more than ten years, and the $5000 space doesn't need illustration to be understood. I'd leave the Bankrupt/$10,000/Bankrupt and Big Money wedges because the textual explanations may not be self-explanatory to the extent that illustrations are redundant. I'd keep both of the puzzle boards. I don't think there currently is a separate set history article (there was one, but I think it got merged after an AfD). However, there is an image of the old board on the daytime page, which would work if that one gets re-formatted as a history of the entire show. DJBullfish and I have both contacted the person who's uploaded most of the non-free material. We'll see if that helps prevent the problem from recurring. JTRH (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the image of Pat & Vanna yesterday, because for some reason its positioning was causing a problem with page formatting, and I didn't know how to reposition it to solve the problem. One down, several to go. JTRH (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wheel_of_Fortune_(US_game_show)/Archive_1&oldid=1142310998"