Talk:Family Feud

src: i.ytimg.com

Video Talk:Family Feud

Unsourced Text Archive

Please feel free to review the text included here and re-add it w/proper sourcing. The article has been tagged for needing sources for over six months. Doniago (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• So, we can't add the simple fact that John O'Hurley hosted from 2006-2010 without sourcing it? If that's the case, why don't you just go ahead and delete every single sentence that doesn't have a reference on it? --Zpb52 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't feel that would be constructive. If you do, please feel free to do so; I likely won't contest it, though I can't speak for other editors. In any event, the article has been clearly marked for sourcing issues for well over a year now; there's no excuse for adding further unsourced information. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of this article, it would be fair enough to blow it up and start over. I have already done so to the lead; however, with the main text of the article, finding sources for it is problematic. I have learned that there are several reliable sources for what is known about this show beyond those provided in the article, but the question is, do those reliable sources in existence that talk about the show cover all that is known about it? It is our responsibility as Wikipedians to find out.

Beyond this, there are still some key questions about the show that need to be answered: How and why was the show created? What was/were Goodson's source(s) of inspiration for the series, and were there any pilot episodes that differed substantially from the Family Feud that is recognized today? Has the show had any further reception, legacy, or pop-culture impact beyond what the sources present in this article state? Information like this needs to be mined from reliable sources if applicable, because it is vital to getting this article to a higher status. --SethAllen623 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

While I have mainly transitioned over to the NASCAR WikiProject, I agree with Seth on this one and would be willing to help out if assistance is needed. As it stands now the article is nowhere up to the level of the rest of the "Big 4", if you will. That is, the four syndicated game shows in Jeopardy!, Millionaire, and Wheel of Fortune. As a Sixers fan, I can say that GM Sam Hinkie's strategy has been to "blow the team up and start all over", with the hopes of being a championship-winning team a few years down the road. The same idea applies here; I think it would be better to revamp the entire article rather than try taking the current version and merely improve the wording and add citations. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Family Feud

Survey and Points

I did not read the whole article, but there were a couple things that I wanted to know that may not have been included. One, what groups were surveyed for the questions? Two, if an answer to a survey question had only one respondent, it was not included, so how low could the point totals have been for a survey?

• Came to this article for similar info. Where is information on the survey taking process? Where do they take surveys? How are responses processed and sorted (as the above comment reflects that you cannot have answers with only 1 response)?

src: read-static.tidal.com

Come on!

This is possibly the worst article on Wikipedia! No sources, citiation needed tags everwhere! Now, I sourced this recently and now the citations are gone. --Coingeek (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of going through the article history to find out when (and possibly who) removed the citations? That would obviously be a pretty serious problem. I moved large chunks of unsourced material here, but I wouldn't generally touch anything with a citation. Doniago (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

What is wrong with "is currently"?

When used with the present tense of a verb, "currently" is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant "currently".

In the case of this article, is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?"

• Family Feud is an American television game show that is presently hosted by Steve Harvey...."
• Family Feud is an American television game show that is hosted by Steve Harvey...."

AmericaDad86 says that ""currently" or "presently" would imply that Harvey has not always hosted the series". Are we sure that the reader will get the implication? It is beeter to be explicit that to imply. The next paragraph says "The show premiered on ABC and was hosted by Richard Dawson from 1976...", which is clear and unambiguous, rather than implying.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the present tense the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by "currently" or "presently" is not correct.

1. Barack Obama is currently president of the United States.
2. Barack Obama is president of the United States.

1. The Burj Khalifa is currently the tallest building in the world.
2. The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world.

The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren't ambiguous, are they?

• I am sick.
• It is raining.
• He is naked.

No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States - he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.

Is there ever an appropriate time to use "is currently"? There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, "is currently" is correct, but "is now" is better because it is shorter and simpler.

For example:

• The restaurant will be open tomorrow morning, but it is closed now.
• I was feeling sick this afternoon, but I'm all right now.

In these cases, the present tense on its own isn't really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding "now" provide the emphasis to make the situation clear. Sorry for the long rant, but it bugs me that verbs are not being left to do their jobs in peace without superfluous modifiers. Ground Zero | t 13:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to break out the current host from the first part of the sentence. "Family Feud is an American television game show." Then go into the hosting data in more detail. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

src: 1.bp.blogspot.com

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family Feud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, this is an interesting case. Until three months ago the article looked like this - 22:38, December 2, 2014 version - and was 6,100 words long. Then it underwent a series of reductions for unsourced material culminating in a complete WP:BLOWITUP two months ago. The new article that is being submitted for review is 2,400 words, or about 2½ times shorter. What information about the show has been lost during this transformation?

At a glance, the major things lost include:

• descriptions of the changes over time in the show's rules
• descriptions of the changes in the show's sets
• descriptions of all the show's tournaments
• descriptions of the show's all-star specials.

There are no doubt others that I missed. The question is, how much of what used to be there and isn't anymore is important and how much is excessive detail and fancruft?

In addition, I am concerned about several broad aspects of the current version of the article:

• The lead is hard to follow, with overly exact dates for the show's incarnations in the first paragraph (just year ranges are enough here, the precise dates can be given in the article body) and equal weight being given to hosts and announcers (aren't the hosts more important?).
• The way the sectioning is done now, I found it hard to follow the evolution of the show, because it is broken up across the "Hosts and announcers", "Production", "Broadcast history", and "Reception" sections. The old article took a more chronologically integrated approach and, for me at least, is easier to follow.
• The article never really explains what the appeal of the show is. Is it the ability for the audience to try to guess the most popular answers at home? Is it the personality of the host and his interactions with the family members? Is it interactions among the family members themselves? Something about this show must be unique or special for it to be considered the third-ranking game show of all time - what is it?
• There needs to be more material on Dawson as host, since for many that was the defining era of the show, and more on how he interacted with the family members, especially women. He made a point of kissing each one, and that aspect became so well known that the New York Times obit on him has "Host Who Kissed on 'Family Feud'" in its title. And the Times obit mentions several aspects of the kissing as being popular and/or controversial. Yet the kissing is never mention in this article at all.
• If Harvey as host as revived the show, there needs to be some description of what about his way of hosting that has made a difference compared to the hosts before him.
• The article is sorely lacking in images. The logo at the top is okay but needs a caption as to when it's from. In particular, an image of the gameboard would make the article much more understandable to readers who have never viewed the show. Compare to the Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) articles, which have plenty of images.
• Nowhere in the article does it explain what the announcer does - is it a minor role at the start and end of the show or a more major role during it, like say in The Price is Right?
• The international adaptations are buried in this version of the article, with two unclear links. This needs to be like in the old article, with a separate section and a visible {{Main}} link to International versions of Family Feud and a summary piece of text.

I'm putting this on hold pending some responses from the nominator on these points. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Now that I think about it, I may have nominated this a bit prematurely. I thought the article was pretty close after it was blown up, so I tweaked some final things before giving it a nomination. I also can guarantee that I cannot fix all of these issues within 7 days as I'm currently involved in some other projects. That being said, I've also pinged SethAllen623 to see if he can finish up this project as he is the one who cut down on the trivia and fancruft. To sum it up, I'd suggest failing this nomination unless Seth chimes in and is willing to take this up, as the article clearly has some more work that needs to be done. Thanks again for your review, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Per this, I think it's best for everyone if we fail the article for now; I did not realize how much more work needed to be done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Merge proposal

Merge Celebrity Family Feud with this article, despite different host, network, and slightly tweaked 60-minute format...... like the All-Star edition from the 70s as well as the Challenge version from the 90s... both of which are mentioned in this same article. Information from the Celebrity article can easily fit into the regular Feud article, so why make a separate article for it? It's just confusing.  MegastarLV  (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

src: www.olionews.com

Beginning to give this some attention

[ moved here from GA review page ]

{{ping|Wasted Time R|SethAllen623}} My time is limited right now, but I'm going to try to give this some attention in the coming days. Any input or suggestions from either of you would be much appreciated (no sweat if you're busy, of course). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321:, the GA review is closed for some time now, so that page should not be modified. You can discuss further improvements and changes to the article here on the normal article Talk page. If you want to bring the article up for GA again, that would be a new review that starts from scratch with a new reviewer, although of course that reviewer can look at the previous review to see what was judged lacking at that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks, my mistake (2.5 years here and I'm still learning new things every day). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead is consistent with other articles such as Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) in terms of it giving precise dates in the lead. Regarding the announcers, while the hosts are probably more notable, is it really necessarily "bad" to at least mention the announcers in the lead? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Views on leads will vary. I just looked at the lead for Jeopardy! and I don't like it much. Too much detail in some places and some major aspects left out, such as the fame and general usage of the theme music, the cultural impact, the Ken Jennings streak and the attention it produced, why it's been so successful. But you are right, if you point to similar GA articles that have similar levels of detail in the lead, a GA reviewer would be hard-pressed to make a stand on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Buzzr

The paragraph on reruns airing on Buzzr needs an update, since the network has launched. Are any hosts other than Dawson currently airing on it? 67.197.243.87 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Timeline

Please do not re-add the host timeline to this article.

• The information on hosts is already included in two places: the infobox, and in Family Feud#Hosts and announcers. It does not need to be displayed in a third format within the article.
• This is not a standard feature in articles where multiple people have hosted a program. It is not featured in any other game show article, nor is it commonplace in other television show articles.
• The font size and format is garish and difficult to read.
• It does not provide any additional information, understanding or detail not already included within the article.

AldezD (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, in my edit summary, I said: "Find consensus on talk page and don't edit war. See WP:DONTREVERT". It looks like you did one of the three. We don't revert back and then start a discussion. You reverted Happypillsjr's edit, then I re-added it, so then it's up to you to find consensus (or give an MOS) that supports your removal.

• re: #1: Infoboxes "summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." And so do tables/charts in the body of the article. (Infobox is considered separate from the main article.)
• re: #2: Virtually all TV show articles have cast sections that either have bulleted lists or tables (sometimes both) that tell what seasons they are in. A few (not many) do have this type of timeline.
• re: #2: I do think it doesn't look as good as a wikitable. So, if you want, you can add a list or table instead (or if you prefer, I can do it).
• re: #3: It doesn't need to add anything that's not in prose; in fact, it shouldn't.

Even though you wrongly removed it again, I'm not going to re-add it. But if you don't give a good response, I will. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This article already has a cast section that details who hosted the show and the dates of his tenure. It does not need to be duplicated in another bulleted list or timeline. Listing this information a second (or third, counting the infobox) time in the same article is unnecessary. Family Feud has featured six hosts in 40 years of television. Six. The dates they appeared are accurately listed and easily deciphered from the text already included in the article. A bulleted list or table showing this information a second time within the same section of the article is completely unnecessary. Even a program like Today--which has a much more complex history of on-air talent--does not feature a timeline or second format of displaying this information already contained within the notable on-air staff section. At most, a single-photo collage featuring a head shot of each host with an appropriate caption should be included as an image within the section. The timeline is gigantic, garish, difficult to read and not widely used anywhere else in television articles on Wikipedia. Adding it in no way improves the article. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not remove the infobox then? It's not "necessary" - but it is helpful. Did you read WP:DONTREVERT yet? Let me quote from it: "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary". What are you talking about with Today? The "Former on-air staff" sub-section has four lists. You need to show more effort of being willing to collaborate with other editors (compromise) - like I have shown (#2). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The infobox is necessary and part of MOS:TV--you know that. Implying that I'm suggesting the infobox should be removed based upon my earlier reply is nonsense. The timeline you are suggesting to include is not helpful. It is a duplication of information already contained within the same section. The timeline is garish, obtrusive and difficult to read.

In my earlier reply, the Today show was used as an example of a complex on-air personality ("host") section. The #Notable on-air staff section within that specific article lists those who appeared on the program concisely. It does not then repeat the same information within the same section in another format (i.e., a timeline), like you are suggesting should be included in this article, a subject with a much simpler back-story of on-air talent. Family Feud is not nearly as complex as Today, yet you are suggesting the same host information for Family Feud needs to be repeated in another graphic format within the same section to be better understood.

Again, the timeline does not improve this article, nor would a bulleted list or table of the same information within the same section. AldezD (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, per Help:Infobox, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox,...is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." And MOS:TV does not say it has to be used. I wasn't implying anything any such thing. I was giving an equivalency comparison. Both the infobox and a "timeline" (in whatever format) are not necessary and both are helpful. If they weren't, they wouldn't be used in thousands of articles. I've tried working with you on this, and you have not given very good reasoning for removal (not supported by any MOS). I could re-add it, due to you not following proper procedure, but I'm not going to -- especially since the editor who added it hasn't been involved in the discussion. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. The timeline you are suggesting adding is a duplication of information already contained within the same section. It is not widely used. It is obtrusive. It uses smaller fonts and is difficult to read. It is not helpful. It does not improve the article. AldezD (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who's not getting it somehow. As I said from the beginning (points #1 & #3), tables/charts don't need to add anything that's not in prose; in fact, they shouldn't. They are like the infobox, where they "summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." And as I made clear (I thought), we're no longer talking about the timeline that was added and you removed. I gave two other formats to choose from. And those are the ones that are used in the vast majority of articles about TV shows. --Musdan77 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be detailed twice within the same section. 14:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Again, look back at what I said (and quoted) on the word "necessary" (which is synonymous with "need"). I don't want to repeat myself again. Your argument is still not supported by MOS -- in fact, to the contrary. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Where in MOS does it state something should be duplicated within the same section? WP:TVCAST states "To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information." Granted, that comment is related to differentiating between a cast list and character list and not directly related to a show that does not feature characters. But you're still suggesting duplicating information in a second format that is already concisely detailed in prose. The same information does not need to be displayed in two separate formats (prose & bulleted list, prose & table or prose & timeline) within the same section. It's redundant. AldezD (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of things used in articles that technically could be considered redundant, but they are used because they help the reader -- such as the overview table. And what WP:TVCAST does say is "cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways..." It doesn't say anything about prose -- though I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family Feud. 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/20150316131518/http://endlessgames.com/gamesFamilyFeud.html to http://www.endlessgames.com/gamesFamilyFeud.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia