Talk:The $64,000 Question

message: How can the title be fixed? The correct title is The $64,000 Question. Pepso 18:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no technical limitation which stops the $ sign from being used in the title. If the correct title is The $64,000 Question, it should be changed unless anyone has any objections to it being changed. --tgheretford (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: And it's not appropriate for wikipedia.  Should someone tag it as such?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.5.81 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page glows with nostalgia 

message: I'm not sure this article covers the fact that in the UK people say "the 64 million dollar question" when they mean the most important question, they do not say "the 64 thousand dollar question". However, I imagine the origin of the phrase is the same, but somewhere down the line "thousand" got changed to "million".
Also - why 64 ? How and why did this ammount come about? Why not 60 or 50, a round figure?
The article does explain the origin of 64.  "The first question was worth one dollar, and the value doubled for each successive question, up to the seventh and final question, worth $64."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johhtfd (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the UK the phrase is "The 64 million dollar question" 

message: This article makes a passing reference or two to a category board but never explains it. Could somebody please add it? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category board 

message: I believe there is an error of fact in this article. It states that Gino Prato, the humble shoe repairman, "won $64,000" on the program. The article that appeared in Time magazine in 1955 states that Mr. Prato stopped at $32,000 and refused to go further, on the advice of his father. That is also my recollection, as I watched that program live when it broadcast! I would not demand that anyone trust my memory after 50 years, but the Time article is available online at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807567,00.html
I did not wish to edite the article without further verification, but if someone can offer further evidence, I think the correction should be made.
>>I can understand your confusion in this matter. The quiz show The $64,000 Question had a habit of inviting back previous winners. Shoemaker Gino Prato, I believe, first won $32,000 and was later brought back to show because of his popularity and proceeded to win $64 000 (with the help of the show's producers rigging the questions). If you go to you'll see that the date on it is August 22nd, 1955, and it describes him as winning $32 000. However, if you go to , you'll see that the date is Feb. 15, 1956, half a year later, and it describes him as winning $64 000. Since the game show works in the way of when winners come back they bet any previously made money, Mr. Prato's overall earnings were $64 000. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion board, and I hope this cleared it up for you. If you would like to discuss this further, leave a message on my discussion board or continue with this post.
Harry54321987 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: :Image:Takeitorleaveit.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 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Takeitorleaveit.jpg

message: :Image:Jazz64.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) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jazz64.jpg

message: * Here we need a complete list of all people who won 64k, plus a list of those who tried and failed.  A list of selected others would also be useful.  Can you help? Pepso2 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment removed from article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The $64,000 Question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150114044749/http://www.andrewtobias.com/fireandice.html to http://www.andrewtobias.com/fireandice.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122152334/http://timstvshowcase.com/64000q.html to http://timstvshowcase.com/64000q.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150114044749/http://www.andrewtobias.com/fireandice.html to http://www.andrewtobias.com/fireandice.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps this is a topic that belongs over on Wiktionary? However I think the prevailing usage these years is "the $64 question", perhaps because the other form is too long and feels too heavy for casual use. At least I've heard and read a lot of uses of phrases like "that's the $64 question" and can't recall ever hearing or reading the longer form. However I admit that I can't find any clear evidence because it's hard to separate the numerous historical references to the big scandal from the idiomatic usages in actual conversations that signify "the ultimate question". I actually think it's significant that the phrase implies there was a series of earlier and less important questions. Shanen (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In current usage, people still talk about the "$64 question", not the "$64,000 question"? 

message: The "64 million dollar question", if you ever hear it put that way, is probably a conflation of the 64 thousand dollar question and The Six Million Dollar Man. Unless it's after 2040, in which case 64 million dollars probably doesn't amount to even a small hill of beans. :o) 92.21.13.201 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 64 *million* dollar question 

message: I added text about Denmark, but the text in the table wont stand in rows (is that the right word?) and im not sure how to make it do that. If someone could help i would really appreciate it! :) Spiderwinebottle (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in rows 

message: Nothing is mentioned about what films/videotape of this show still exist. Does anyone know? --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status