Talk:Deal or No Deal (American game show)/Archive 1

message: According to NBC.com, the Banker's offer depends also on player's psychology. Would that make sense? If a player seems to be able to be tempted into accepting a deal, should the banker make a smaller-than-usual offer? Xiner 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that make sense, Tuspm?  I don't know the exact models the banker uses, but it always makes an offer at a disadvantage to the contestant.  It may seem like a good deal to you, but the banker counts on something that says she will decline that offer in favor of chances that are unfavorable to her, namely,  a psychological profile. (Warrenreport 06:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Banker's offer depends also on player's psychology? 

message: I replaced the set of superscripts with a table, since it makes the progression of values much clearer. Stismail 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 2 values 

message: I recently attended an episode of Deal or No Deal! The air date is slated for May 5...Any way, I got to ask Howie a question before shooting began. The question I asked was "Does the phone really work?"
All things considered it seemed like a good question, except Howie replied..."What, do you think I talk to myself down here? Of course, the phone really works." 
So there's an interesting anecdote. I figured it was just a prop, but I guess the studio spent some extra $$$ on that contemporary white wireless telephone...
: Well, duh the phone works! If it didn't, how would Howie know the offer? Did you think he made up a price at the top of his head? I don't think so! --Tuspm 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The white phone. 

message: Most of the episode blurbs we have on here are rather non-notable.  There has to be a better way to present the info from each individual episode - perhaps in their own article?  As it is right now, the whole article is long, with too much emphasis in individual episodes.Letoofdune 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Summaries 

message: How exactly is the amount of the offer calculated? I've wondered that since the first episode.Ianthegecko 03:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer calculations? 

message: There seems to be some dispute as to what case LaKeesa Bright initially chose (the case which contained the $1,000,000).  I was under the impression it was 17, someone else believes it was 25.  Someone could confirm and correct this, as it is a milestone for the show.  Crazdgamer 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 17. I saw the repeat on CNBC. Also, the spelling was "LaKissa," according to the banners on the show and this . By the way, we're eventually going to have to move all the episode descriptions to a separate article. Casey Abell 14:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 26 2006 episode 

message: Just as a clarification...is the $8 winner that guy who kept on talking about Texas and how not to mess with it? Thanks...(oh, and if he is indeed the $8 winner, perhaps that would be an interesting thing to add)
:Unfortunately, I hadn't started watching the show when that happened, but an $8 deal is HILARIOUS.  I love watching the greedy people lose. VelvetKevorkian 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  $8 winner 

message: Well, they are. We need to decide what to do about this soon - too many anony editors out there who think that EVERY episode is notable. The section needs to be hacksawed. Lambertman 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we just need a separate article for episode summaries. Something like List of Desperate Housewives episodes. In fact, the formatting from that article could be used, except I doubt images from each episode are available, and there wouldn't be much need for Title, Writer(s) or Director columns. I definitely think we should keep all the information for the various episodes. The show's summer hiatus might be a good time to split off the list of episodes article. Casey Abell 17:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. i mean, there are other shows that have completely separate articles for individual episodes. (for example, The Office.) i don't see any harm in one page dedicated to all of the episodes (or one page per season). if anything, i think the records and statistics part of the article could use a clean-up... for example, i think it's kinda unnecessary to state that the highest and lowest amounts in a contestant's case were one cent and one million dollars... as they are usually the highest and lowest amounts possible. (disregarding specials, of course.) Art Begotti 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Deal or No Deal episodes now looks pretty good. Format issues have been cleared up, the summaries are comprehensive, there's even a photo of Donald Trump! Casey Abell 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode summaries are completely out of control 

message: As a compromise I've moved the four catch phrase items to the "Trivia" section. It's not necessary to dogmatize that catch phrases must be put in Wikiquote. Many readers won't even know what Wikiquote is. A brief, reasonable selection of catch phrases is acceptable in the main article, regardless of what gets put into Wikiquote. Casey Abell 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch phrases 

message: recently, the first bullet in the trivia section was deleted. i had written that... partly... the original, which i had written was as follows:
"A commercial for the second week-long special illustrated a first-person simulation of what it's like to be a contestant on Deal or No Deal. Scenes included glancing at the scoreboard, the models, the family members in the audience, and finally at Howie Mandel. However, the commercial contained some continuity errors. One was that the scoreboard showed that a number of boxes had been opened already, but all 26 models were still on stage. Also, the bank offer shown was too large for the amounts of money left in play."
when i wrote that originally, my intent was to point out the ironic flaws in the commercial. then, someone along the line added to it, somewhat destroying the point of the paragraph. it became more about the whole commercial than the errors in the commercial. the revision, before it was deleted (i added italics to show what was added):
"A commercial for the second week-long special illustrated a first-person simulation of what it's like to be a contestant on Deal or No Deal. Scenes included glancing at the scoreboard, the flashing red button (only to press if you make the deal), the models, the mysterious banker, the family members in the audience, and finally at Howie Mandel. However, the commercial contained some continuity errors. One was that the scoreboard showed that a number of boxes had been opened already (and the current bank offer), but all 26 models were still on stage, including Donna Feldman, who the speakable contestant thought she had a penny in her case. Also, the bank offer shown was too large for the amounts of money left in play. It ends with Mandel asking the question: "Deal... or No Deal?""
it irritated me for some time, but i successfully managed to procrastinate mentioning it. now, the bullet was removed by Lambertman, calling it "un-notable trivia". and i wholly agree... but it wasn't meant to be that way. 
forgive me for being stubborn and appealing this, but would you consider restoring this bit of trivia, given that the original form is used? i feel that the errant commercial is worth some note, but obviously not the whole commercial.Art Begotti 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the original text. It's a harmless bit of trivia, a little humor about the vagaries of promos. Down the road we might want to split off a separate article on trivia and pop culture references about the show, especially if it lasts for several seasons. A separate article worked well for the episode descriptions. Casey Abell 12:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I hated it because those later additions just the very bit of child-fan-babble that drives me up the wall (lookie I know the models name omg i rite gud), but I don't have a problem with your original text. Lambertman 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've learned my lesson... don't procrastinate. not now at least. Art Begotti 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost the Point 

message: Can anybody confirm the $7,500,000 grand prize amount shown in the article? I've never heard of it anywhere but here and I'm doubting its accuracy. (Edit: sorry for not IDing myself earlier.) Macnbc 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one, mysterious stranger. I think an edit is in order. Lambertman 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, now that Mike Klauss' audience report confirms that there's no $7.5 million grand prize , I guess we can put that to rest. -- CRiyl 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 2 premiere amounts? 

message: Am I missing something? This article already has sections, subsections, gazillions of internal and external links, an infobox, captioned images, bulleted lists, and the template for other versions of the show. How are we supposed to wikify it any more? Casey Abell 14:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit justifies a wikify tag? Why didn't LuciferMorgan just make the small change himself? Oh, well. Tempest. Teapot. Casey Abell 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify tag? 

message: It's started to become a bit confusing which records are from episodes with the regular top prize of $1,000,000 and which are from special episodes with a higher top prize, like the later 1:30 of the season 2 premiere. --Libertyernie2 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records confusion 

message: Hiya Americans, I a "Dumb" british and i really like the look of the show. But how do they pick a player to play?
Duff12 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a dumb question at all. They have tryouts well beforehand where they interview the potential contestants (and apparently pick the craziest ones they can find). They may act excited when they're "called out of the audience", but it's been planned well in advance that they'd be playing that day. Lambertman 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can either submit a 5-minute videotape of yourself, your potential supporters, etc., along with an 11-page application; OR try out at an "open casting call" (such as the one in Chicago I'm going to tomorrow).  --Orange Mike 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you Duff12 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol I think this American version is so cheesy!  Kinda random telling you this but the Aussie version is the best - they have the audience sit in 6 blocks, then choose a block at random plus one extra player.  Then allhave to answer 3 trivia questions and one person is chosen randomly from those who get all 3 correct.  That person plays the game - the others open the suitcases.  That's right - the models don't figure heavily.  But every time a suitcase is opened the person opening it gets to guess what is in the case - and they get $1,000 bucks if they're right!  Much more fun than the American version! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they choose a Player??? 

message: The first season episode-list article has been put up for deletion. I'll save the contents onto my hard drive, just in case the material gets the ax. I'd advise anybody else who's interested in the show's record to do the same. By the way, I voted keep in the AfD, as you might expect. Very early returns are 2-2. An oddity: there's no AfD for Deal or No Deal, Season 2 (US), though I suppose that will be forthcoming if the first AfD succeeds. I'll save that article onto my hard drive, too. Casey Abell 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request for [[Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US)]] 

message: I think that Howard wants to host the syndicated version. Unless
they give him the hosting job, I think we'll keep getting various
scribbles in the Syndicated versions part of the text. Like about
the Wendy the Retard stuff. Maybe it's juvenile, but then the
Stern show and this one aren't too serious ...
Actually, he might make a good host of DoND. And a 'raunchy'
version could be a lot of fun, say, on the Playboy channel! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alaney2k (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern wants to host 

message: why have you removed the dond episodes if they are not even being copied to tviv? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.12.189 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal to tviv 

message: I've decided to be bold and shorten this article considerably. In moving the models to their own article, this bit of info - the gameplay from the first Miss USA episode - has no logical home. I'm saving it here in case someone thinks they can do something with it. Lambertman 15:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved models info to [[List of Deal or No Deal models (US)]] 

message: Messy Thinking 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model Theater 

message: BROOKS LEACH IS COMING BACK! 24.206.74.247 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100th episode 

message: THERE WAS NO MAY 3RD EPISODE!
go to any other site that provides information on DOND episodes and you will find no documentation. 24.206.74.247 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  may 3 episode? 

message: Actually someone spilled the beans on here because tonight's episode (May 6, 2007) is the one that the contestant won $1 that the poster mentioned because they mentioned about Hurricane Katrina and Clorox donating money. I hate it when people spoil the game for everyone. BravesFan2006, 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spilled the beans about May 3rd episode which aired tonight May 6th 

message: :Image:Dealornodealaus2006.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Dealornodealaus2006.JPG 

message: When posting information on future episodes, could you please refrain from discussing the gameplay, or the reason a guest appeared on the show? (It's okay to mention the guest.) Even though NBC is habitually spoiling the game with its promos and press releases doesn't mean we have to do it, too. -- azumanga 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers for future episodes 

message: howie did not mention any limit on how many $1,000,000 cases would be added to the game during today's games. Andrewb1 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MDM? 

message: There should be section on the syndicated edition coming in 2008.  I heard that the format will be similar to the UK version where it'll be 22 cases held by 22 different contestants and one lucky contestant will be picked to play the game with their selected case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.229.112 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a separate section for the syndication edition 

message: Added a records section. The records for the bank offers didn't seem to fit in Gameplay. Feel free to expand it if you wish. :)
Does anyone have the record for most money won with a no deal? Sibpin 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records 

message: I dont think the Country Of Origin is the US. So if you find the real Country Of Origin please write it.
: It originated in Austrailia, check the main Deal or no deal page. 70.111.251.203 02:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check that page you'll see that it originated not in Australia but in the Netherlands in 2001.67.161.117.60 09:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It started in Denmark. There were versions throughout Europe before the US version.http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=693864a4-b4b0-4c4b-af8b-414583c48c23&k=48153
It started in the NetherlandsLB22 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country Of Origin 

message: The table of amounts says the smallest amount is $1.
I had the impression that it was 1¢, and certainly
the text nearby says that as a joke it was once increased to 3¢. Either it's wrong or something's changed at some time.
207.176.159.90 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small amounts? 

message: This article is in major need of overhauling.  As part of the clean up to shorten this article, I have completely removed the Records and Statistics section. It really isn't necessary for this article, is more trivia than encyclopedic, and appeared to be comprised almost entirely of WP:NOR.
The Million Dollar Mission, Lucky Case game, and Case values sections have been put under the Game play section.  I've moved up Odds and Probabilities section to be under there as well and cut it down in size, though I think the section could also easily be cut out all together as being unnecessary. The Guest appearances, Trivia, Quotes, and Imitations are gone.  They are all sections of trivia and fancruft, not encyclopedic value.  There were a few bits of good stuff in the trivia which has been put in a new production details section, however they need clean up and better organizing. The merchandise section has been rewritten to get it out of list form. Finally, I have cleaned up the External Links section which had many links that violate the external links policies.
Things that still need to be done to help get this article's quality up: several sections need references fixed as they are mostly inline links and some are not valid references (such as a link to Wal-mart.com).  The sectioning is badly done and all over the place.  Some reorganization is highly desirable and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_about_television_programs would be a good guide to use for help there. Several sections also need cutting down to be tighter and more encyclopedic, particularly changing lists to prose and removing extraneous details. AnmaFinotera 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Clean Up 

message: I returned the "the Million Dollar Mission will return" fact to the article, which was originally deleted by AnmaFinotera on the justification that it is a personal blog. I would personally not regard BuzzerBlog as "personal"; obviously it does include a degree of subjectivity, but it has a number of contributors who all have connections within the game show industry - hardly just one person. See  for more details. --Scani (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed it because the article doesn't really confirm the return, from what I could see, it just had a video clip (which may or may not be a copyvio...not sure what the rules for that would be). If its considered an industry blog, though, and others feel it is actually confirming that the Million Dollar Mission will return, I'm fine with letting it stand. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buzzerblog has generally been reliable, with pretty good contacts in the industry. The assertion is not outlandish - it was always a good bet that the million dollar stunt would return sooner or later. I think we can leave it in the article. Casey Abell (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BuzzerBlog not considered a reliable source? 

message: keep that statistic section in, but trim it a little.. 64.91.201.195 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!