Talk:High Rollers

High Rollers on GSN

Just yet, does that mean GSN is getting rights to High Rollers?

I don't know what just yet means.

--Nextbarker 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) nextbarker

High Rollings to GSN makes alot of sense, we have a Blackjack show, Poker games, why not a Craps game, classic show.

--24.228.70.72 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)nextbarker

NOTE TO GOOD ARTICLE REVIEWERS

If you're going to review this article, please keep in mind the fact that the status on all of the episodes from 1974-1980 is unknown, with only ONE episode known to exist of the 1974-1976 version, so it's flat out impossible to get screenshots of that version. And the 1978-1980 version has only about a dozen episodes available, so episode citations and references are going to be hard to find. Thanks for reading, and hope you review the article with these notes above in mind! FamicomJL 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the references section to be easier to read (2 column). Upon initial review of the references, checking it against the quick fail criteria, a couple things come up as possible issues. First, references 3 and 13 are referred to a combined 16 times, and yet neither site would likely be considered a reliable source, as they are both basically "fan sites", (Curt Alliaume’s Utterly Irrelevant Web Site, and Tim's TV Showcase). Second, references 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, are all just referencing a show's air date, and while if one were able to watch the show, it would verify the passage they reference, that is not considered a neutral, third-party source of reference, and also would be difficult for someone to verify. Finally, the last reference is to IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source, and that reference should be removed, and moved into the external links, using the template for IMDB entries ({{imdb title}}) where the "Title number" is the IMDB number, in this case, 1007375, which produced this:

• High Rollers at IMDb

Finally, the majority of (except for the "cite show" refs, 4, and 7-11) references consist of simply a URL and title inside a ref tag. For a review of the expanded citation styles, and examples of the available citation templates, please see this page, and Template:Citation. (Use of the templates is not mandatory, but it does significantly help with readability, and the templates are often used to provide clarity.) Note that this was just a cursory, initial evaluation of only the references section, and not the article itself. My suggestion would be this article needs its references cited a bit more thoroughly, with assistance of the above templates, and could benefit from more verifiable, third-party neutral references, if at all possible. (and I understand the issues you specified above may constrain that). I hope this is taken with the intent of assistance it was given, and that it was helpful. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. :). Just a few things...The Curt Alliaume page is pretty much the only page I could find on schedule info for the show itself, which is why I only cited the timeslot changes, which the site did correctly provide. I can't find any other sources for it. And I don't own old TV guides, nor do I believe any local library would even have any. My apologies on the imdb entry, I'll take that out right away, no idea on how that happened...I'll add it to the external links section. Tim's TV Showcase was for the models. I'll change it so that it's only after one sentence, and not three citations in one sentence. :)

And on the episode citations...that's the best we can do for the 1974-1976 version. Even the book "The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows", which is considered THE best source for all game show articles here, has sketchy details on that version. The only way to verify anything about the show is actally watching the episode itself. Only ONE episode is even known to exist. And that episode is only available by going to UCLA and watching it there. And the 6/20/80 citation was only because that was the only episode where the $10,000 fish bowl was offered, and the article said as such, so I thought a citation wouldn't do any harm. Thanks, I'll get to work on some corrections. FamicomJL 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and please don't take my suggestions as criticism, as I truly just meant to try to help. I fully understand the limitations of obtaining valid WP:RS for older shows, and I sympathize with you! lol. I hope that these issues are taken into consideration when the article's status is reviewed, but I just thought I'd bring them to your attention initially. Good luck with the GA! ^Ariel♥Gold 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I see/know what you're saying. It's just that sometimes people don't take those things into account...I also found a reference for the Australian version of the show, a proper one too. I'm hoping this gets passed...FamicomJL 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll cross my fingers for you! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way

When you're citing the same source multiple times, using the <ref name="name"> tag, you don't need to fully repeat the URL, title, etc. Simply place <ref name="name" /> instead, and it will duplicate the entry as a citation. Saves some typing (be sure you have a space between the title and the backslash). Hope that's helpful! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I always wondered how that worked! Thanks! Time to copy that into my little wikipedia notepad document. :D FamicomJL 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidate Review

Hello,

I have now reviewed this article as per the Good article criteria and have commented in detail below:

Well written FAIL.

Please refer to the Manual of Style for suggestions on how to improve this article. In particular I am concerned about the use of multiple ways of referring to the program. Used in the article are "High Rollers", "HR", "the show", etc.

Other issues include the lack of consistency in referencing dates and times listed for the program. eg. 6.30p.m. and 10:30 are used in the same section. Consider standardising the method you use to reference these. Check out the Manual of Style for more info.

Sections such as "Foreign Versions" contain only one line of information. Perhaps this could be either expanded and/or rolled into another section.

Factual accuracy FAIL

I understand the issues raised in the talk page of this article, but sections of this article still lack any references whatsoever. For example, Episode Status.

Coverage PASS

The article seems to cover the topic very well.

Neutrality PASS

I am satisfied that this article is written from a Neutral Point of View.

Stability PASS

The article shows no recent edit warring, and the article does not change dramatically from day to day.

Images PASS

The images used cover the topic well and are used correctly.

-

As a result of the above concerns I have failed the article at this time, as I do not believe that it is likely the article can be brought up to GA Status within 7 days, and as such placing the article at On Hold status wouldn't be beneficial.

The article is certainly coming along however, and the editors should be proud of the work they have done so far. Feel free to contact me on my talk page for more information, or if you have any questions or comments on my review. Pursey 12:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the review. I shall try to fix these errors for a review in the future. FamicomJL 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rolling doubles?

Can anyone clarify this part? which meant that a roll of 2 (aka "Snake Eyes" 1-1) was the only safe roll whether the number itself was on the board or not. Likewise, a roll of 12 (aka "Boxcars" 6-6) was always safe too, whether any numbers on the board that could add up to 12 were still in play or not.

Why was 2 the "only safe roll", and how can this be true if 12 is also safe? Needs clarifying TheHYPO (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that part was ridiculously wishy-washy as well. Re-writing it or removing it would probably be a good idea. I have seen quite a few episodes, and those rolls never came up as always safe rolls. But then again, my memory is cloudy, haven't watched the show in awhile. Best bet for now is to remove it. FamicomJL (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand that either. It's been a long time since I last remember it being on the air, and it seems no channel is airing it right now, so I'm not sure what that means. Can whoever wrote that section in the article give some insight? If nobody can somehow explain how that statement is true I'd agree with FamicomJL that that line should be taken out. --Zidane2k1 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad references removed

Almost every reference used on this site was someone's personal website (except for one link which was broken). I have removed all the personal websites from the article, as I feel they do not meet WP:RS or WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

screenshot of HR 74 FOUND!!

On the site http://gameshows.wikia.com/wiki/High_Rollers there is a VERIFIED screenshot of the opening titles to the 1974 High Rollers series. How do I get permission to upload this shot to the article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blozier2006 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, most of the text of the article on that site is taken from this article. JTRH (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lucky Numbers

I can't find a single reliable source that says anything about Lucky Numbers. Furthermore, it's original research to call it a revival of High Rollers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)