Talk:Password Plus and Super Password

message: These are two different programs.  Really no reason in my opinion why they can't be two separate articles.Heismanhoosier (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to split these

message: I'm against it. The shows are virtually identical, and this isn't a long article at all. Each individual title redirects here, so there's no confusion. Lambertman 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not split this article. This article is a very managable size. The largest section is the rules section which would be mostly duplicated anyway if you split the articles. There is no good reason to split. CSI shows have different plots, characters, and episodes. Game show articles don't discuss plots or episodes, and only lists personell - no character bios or descriptions. Furthermore, as the these shows are decades old, there isn't a lot of impending NEW info for this article. Until someone has something to add that will make the article much longer, there's no reason for a split that will just duplicate a lot of information. Similarly, What's My Line? is one article for both versions, and I've Got A Secret is one article for something like 5 versions. Same with To Tell The Truth. Not only are the rules essentially the same, but the shows' histories are fairly linked, giving good reason for a shared article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) The_HYPOModor (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Justinthebull, straw man arguments will NOT help you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And misuse of supercilious buzzword terms makes you look like a complete douchebag, Mr. Palmer.  You're embracing a double standard, and it almost seems like you've chosen to do so simply because Mark Odor supports the opposite.  Do NOT attempt to draw me into your puerile little flame wars, child; I will have none of it.  This will be my last word on the matter. Justinthebull (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, discussing the proposed split 

message: I feel that this page should probably be split into two.  I see the brief interlude between 2 users here, which does not convince me that there is any consensus at the moment to whether the pages should be kept like this.  While the shows are similar, they are not identical enough to warrant a bunching like this.  There was a somewhat condescending tag at the top of the article saying "we will remove any split tags" that appears to violate WP:OWN to a great degree.  These are 2 different shows/series, and plausible articles can be written on both, and it is probably best to be that way.  I hope that other users of all sorts will contribute to the talk, and I hope that for the time being, we can keep the split tag until a firm consensus is reached. Biggspowd 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both shows used passwords. Both shows used puzzles. Both shows had two celebrities, four for charity weeks. Both shows had rolling jackpots (Plus in late 1981). I personally don't see how we need to do ANOTHER split, since both shows are really almost identical. FamicomJL 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IT IS THE EXACT SAME SHOW. There is one or two differences, but both of these shows have exactly the same format. You can call it a violation if you want, but there is no need for a split tag. --ChrisP2K5 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Split

message: The tournament of Losers has aired on GSN.
--24.228.70.72 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Password 

message: I don't remember hearing those horns on Cram
--24.228.70.72 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal horns on Cram? 

message: :Image:PasswordPlus.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 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PasswordPlus.jpg

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "The Super Password Company" actually developed the show. I'm fairly sure it, "The Family Feud Company," and their kind were just a company (LLC?) made up of all the organizations and individuals that held rights to the show. This way, only one legal organization held the rights, even if many individuals wanted control. I could be wrong, though.
In regards to the capitalization of CA$HWORD, I'm not sure if the on-screen graphic was capitalized on purpose or because of technical deficiency. I'm assuming good faith on today's revision, so I made the rest of the section consistent on capitalization. If anyone disagrees strongly, feel free to let me know. LinkTiger 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits were from the same person who, through several IP socks, have also constantly reedited interstate exit lists; insists that the title in TV stations' infoboxes includes calls with "-TV" and "-DT", even if the station only existed in the 1950s; and of course, signing each and every article he edits. As for "The Super Password Company", it was merely a dummy company within Mark Goodson Productions, responsible only for Super Password, for financial purposes. Also, that "company" appears only in the copyright. If you see this again where it shouldn't be, revert without prejudice. -- azumanga 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent anonymous edits 

message: With the next revival, this article should either be split into Password Plus, Super Password, and Million Dollar Password or merged into Password (TV series). --Jnelson09 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose Password Plus and Super Password are the exact same, with minor differences, so there's no reason to make no new articles. And the reason why the article was made was because they were both getting too big for the Password article. It is fine so far. We don't know what format Million Dollar Password is even going to be in. Just be patient and see if it's a whole new format. FamicomJL 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposed 10/07 

message: :Image:SuperPassword.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 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And done. My mistake in the first place, anyways. LinkTiger (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SuperPassword.jpg

message: I'm watching "Play It Back: '70s Game Shows" on GSN and they showed a SP clip where a contestant walks to her seat (on the right side of the screen) and falls through the hole in the stage. "Why is there a hole in the stage, you might ask?", they run the clip and Allen says that she fell through his hole. It's put there so Allen doesn't appear to tower over the contestants and celebrities. Warrants a mention here as part of a trivia section? Macshill (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because trivia sections are frowned down upon by Wiki standards. Modor (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen's hole in the stage 

message: Patrick Quinn AKA Kerry Ketchum is an important name to put in here. Any questions?--E2e3v6 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still trivial. WikiLubber (talk)
Trivial?! What does that mean, man?--E2e3v6 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry Ketchum 

message: Before I do anything I need to know if this on-air incident on Password Plus is considered notable to be included in Wikipedia. Debralee Scott best known as Cathy Shumway on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman and Rosalie "Hotsie" Totsie on Welcome Back Kotter was a celebrity contestant on Password Plus and at some point during the game her blouse came loose and her breasts were exposed several times on-the-air until she realized what had happened and quickly and embarrassingly buttoned up. If I recall correctly when this episode originally aired (I believe in '79 or '80) the NBC Standards and Practices ordered it to be blurred or the frames adjusted so that only her head to shoulder could be seen. As a point of reference when it was later syndicate to broadcast television stations including the Buzzr channel the censored version was used but when it aired on cable on GSN the uncensored version is used. The full uncensored video of the incident can be found . So can this be included as a separate paragraph? or just a link in the External links or neither?  YborCityJohn (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloopers like this which did not receive any type of media attention or significance are trivial should not be discussed within the article. AldezD (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks I understand but would an link in the External links be ok or not? since it is not technically discussion in the article but merely a way for people to view a video of the incident. Again I ask because I want to make sure anything I do is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:YT (and specifically the copyright status of the video), please do not link this video within the article. Also, there is a lot of good info within the WP:EL guide. It may provide some additional to help you with this type of stuff in the future. Enjoy! AldezD (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debralee Scott Accidential Breasts Exposure Incident 

message: I really disagree with the removal of the section from this page. It shouldn't have been labeled "controversy" but I believe it belonged on the page as one of the more noteworthy footnotes about the show (it even got a piece on CNN for crying out loud) and the reasoning for its removal was extremely weak. ("It isn't related to the production"? Frankly almost every well-cited page on this wiki related to television would have lots of that content removed then, c'mon.) If you're gonna remove it, I could be open to a decent reason, give a better reason than that. 98.220.44.26 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And for pete's sake, just a few messages above this the person in question who removed the tidbit gets told to let it stay and agrees! Just because it's been three years doesn't somehow make it OK to remove now that no one's discussing it anymore. 98.220.44.26 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded the section. AldezD (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry Ketchum/Patrick Quinn and the removal of this section from the page