Talk:Mike Richards (television personality)

Succession Boxes

There is an obvious edit war going on between me and Sottolacqua in reference to the succession box at the end of this article. I've attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page, only to have my discussion erased, warnings posted to my talk page, and this page (along with Rich Fields, Syd Vinnedge, and Johnny Olson) reverted, sans succession boxes.

Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes aren't necessary because few people have held these offices. However, that is inconsistent with other entertainment articles, and even other Price-related articles, such as Drew Carey, Bob Barker, Doug Davidson, Tom Kennedy, and Dennis James.

Again, I have attempted to have a fruitful discussion with him on his page, only to just be erased (and not only that, be warned for vandalism!). I'm not a vandal. I'm just trying to make an honest edit. But it seems one user has attempted to take ownership of all of these articles. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The succession boxes are unnecessary. Each individual's article discusses their association with the show and the positions with the program are already categorized in the template at the bottom of each page. The boxes clutter the articles.

I suggest removing the succession boxes from Drew Carey, Bob Barker, Doug Davidson, Tom Kennedy, and Dennis James articles as well. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You think they're unnecessary - I do not. The succession boxes provide easy navigation and a timeline for users who don't want to search throughout the article for dates and their successor articles. And again, removing them leads to inconsistency among other entertainment related articles. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Then format them so they at least all look the same. All of the articles mentioned don't use a consistent form of the template. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how. So you'll just erase them, I'm sure, because that's what you seem to be good at. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the code for one, copy it and edit all the articles where you want a succession box. Not taking the initiative to learn doesn't deliver the contribution you are trying to make. Assuming what edits others will make does not help end an edit war, either. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well just arbitrarily erasing crap doesn't help end an edit war, either - it goes both ways.

Anyways, I am looking at the code right now and looking at each announcer and EPs... all of the announcers are the same template (Media Offices)... so, I don't see the inconsistency there (correct me if I'm wrong). --70.242.164.14 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, should we use the media offices template, or the other template (currently in use on Doug Davidson and Rod Roddy)... I'm leaning towards the other template, as it's cleaner. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The media template is likely a better use for media-related articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you both just stop arguing over this issue! Ok, yes I understand that you both disagree on whether or not the succession boxes should be added. I have notified the administrators & they'll soon send an explanation of why the succession boxes should be added. If it is determined that they should be added, we'll keep them. If not, then don't even attempt to add them. No more edit wars over this issue, got it? We're gonna keep the peace & wait for an administrator to resolve this problem.

-User:MegastarLV (talk) September 2010

Umm... you're not helping at all with your discussion-less reverts and self-professed "I verified this with Sottolacqua". He doens't own the article -- wikipedia is about having discussions and coming up with a consensus for the betterment of the wiki. I attempted to have a civil discussion on this page, which you and User:WikiLubber have no desire in participating in. Again, you have reverted the page(s), threatened to have me banned, and on top of everything, I initially notified the administrators as to the issues of civility, sockpuppetry, and ownership displayed by you and User:WikiLubber. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the role of an administrator, and of WP:ANI. This is a content dispute, see WP:DR. David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP and the others need to quit edit warring and initiate a RfC. Kindzmarauli (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes RfC

A disagreement on when and where succession boxes should be used on entertainment related articles. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As you know, on various entertainment related articles, there is usually a "Succession Box" at the end of the article, detailing who came before and who came after in the same position, along with the years they spent in the position.

I recently noticed a number of Price is Right-related articles seemed to be missing these successor boxes, while some articles seemed to have them intact. I added the boxes to this article (Mike Richards), Syd Vinnedge, Rich Fields, Johnny Olson, and Rod Roddy. These boxes were removed, without explanation, shortly after adding them.

There seems to be an inconsistency with these boxes -- for example, User:Sottolacqua makes the claim that the boxes are "unnecessary," and the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation with the show. Additionally, he has made the claim that because so few people have been associated with some of these positions, they are unneeded.

Let's address the first one first -- absolutely, the articles themselves discuss the subject's affiliation... there's no denying that. However, in most cases, a user would have to read through quite a few paragraphs (or maybe more, if fancruft is involved, as is the case on many game show articles) to find something as simple as what years that subject was in their position on the show. The succession boxes make this information easily accessible, and it makes navigation easy too among successor and predecessor articles.

As for the second argument (that we shouldn't include boxes because "so few" are associated with these positions): looking at Alex Trebek as an example, he has a succession box for being the host of Jeopardy!, which only had one prior host, Art Fleming. The same sort of logic applies to Bob Barker and Drew Carey in the Price-realm, and other entertainers & media personalities elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Finally, there are issues of ownership with certain editors in regards to these Price-related articles that I am concerned with. WikiLubber, for example, has stated in revision comments that "Sottolacqua is never wrong". MegastarLV has been quoted as saying: "I have been told by User:Sottolacqua that these succession boxes are unnecessary." This is alarming that one user can effectively control the content and the formatting of a number of articles related to one subject... Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration & discussion.

I would like comments from outsiders on these issues, with the succession boxes taking priority, obviously. If these articles don't deserve succession boxes, then there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia where succession boxes need to be removed. -70.242.164.14 (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't control the actions or contributions of other users, nor can I control what comments they leave in edit summaries. As I stated in the ANI, do what you want, but leave me out of it. You continue to bring me back into a situation in which I've clearly stated I no longer have an interest.

And in the grand scheme of things, they're succession boxes. It's a complete waste of time to edit war over something as ridiculous and insignificant as this. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, clearly you do have an interest since you seem to be directing two other editors as to what's acceptable and what isn't. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not directing them, nor are they meatpuppets. I've done nothing to sway their opinion, nor have I contacted any of them in order to even glean their opinion on the matter. Review my edit history and see what edits I've made. If you think they are sockpuppets of me, open a case. I even told you how to make the succession boxes appear consistent. Also, you are the only editor thus far who has accused me of impropriety and who continues to add links to my talk page/user page in other venues even though I've clearly stated I'm not interested and have asked you to leave me out of the discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here to make a change to Mike's article and saw this discussion, which reminded me of seeing an edit war last night between the IP and yourself. I think the IP is just a little upset - it seems like he's being terrorized by WikiLubber based on everything I've been reading (edit logs, talk pages, etc.), so I kind of understand his animosity of just about everybody involved with Wikipedia.

Personally, I'd like to see the boxes remain for the reasons the IP stated, but cleaned up somewhat. Perhaps there is a way to make the boxes so that they're less intrusive? --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, it really depends on the individual situation.

For politicians, for example, succession boxes are often unnecessary now, as {{Infobox Politician}} includes fields for individual positions with predecessor and successor information, so repeating the same information again in a succession box is just creeping templatitis. Similarly, a template such as {{Governors of Texas}} also eliminates the need for a succession box, given that if the template is organized properly the occupants will already be organized in chronological order anyway.

For people in entertainment, however, it might be different, because alternatives to a succession box might not be available or appropriate. So, to me, the question here is: is this succession box providing useful information that can't be provided in another way, or is it needlessly duplicating information that could be better presented by rearranging {{The Price Is Right}} or adding succession information to the infobox? There's no right or wrong answer here; it really depends on the individual circumstances.

Personally, I will almost always make every possible effort to avoid using succession footers altogether, because they're just irredeemably ugly. But that's me, and YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MTY2NTQxOTM4ODI3MjA3OTIy.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 7FcueCZfcC9HmnTfLgPNNR-650-80.jpg.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Permanent host on Jeopardy

Echoing this from what I recently commented over at Talk:Jeopardy!#Infobox and guest hosts:

Don't think we should be getting ahead ourselves and saying that he's going to be the next permanent host of the show. You can read my full explanation there, but at this point, it seems like nothing is set/definitive yet, even from the articles put out today. We can likely include the information being reported about being in advanced negotiations, but we should wait until the official announcement is released (according to Deadline, 'in the next few days') before saying that he is going to be the next host of the show. Magitroopa (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What Comments ??

Why have the comments that this guy supposedly said that are anti-gay, Anti-Black etc either not put in the article or were put in and then taken out? Lets hear them! A lot of people are accused of things that turn out later to not be true. Is this one of those? One has to conclude "yes" if Wikipedia won't put the comments in. Man up guys. Put the comments in the article or apologize. --2600:6C65:747F:14C9:8568:D7C8:DCE1:B9AE (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The podcast was removed within two hours of Mike Richards being asked for comment. If he himself didn't think that the content was wrong, why did he rush to delete it? If you wish to hear the comments, listen to the podcast yourself, it's in the external links. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Chain Reaction status

So as I was editing 2021 in American television today, I noticed the Chain Reaction entry in Shows returning mentioned Mike Richards in the references, as he was assuming his old role from the previous incarnation and the announcement article was from before his career imploded. It occurred to me that I didn't remember coverage of it mentioning whether CR struck him down too. Has there been any word?--141.157.254.24 (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As there was previously no mention at all about him serving as EP on the show, I've added it in here. As far as now following his recent departures? The only things I've seen are this (a fan/unverified Twitter account- WP:NOTRS) and this (official announcement of new season from verified GSN Twitter, which is WP:RS) alongside the listings on The Futon Critic. If the credits for season 2 episodes do indeed still credit him as EP, the next/best step would be to get a reliable source that the filming of the second season occurred after everything else regarding him happened. Magitroopa (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just checked "Brunch Troop vs. Fitness Pals" (first episode of S2/episode #201, originally aired on November 8, 2021) and Mike is indeed listed as EP. Again, at this point it comes down to finding a reliable source as to when season 2 was actually filmed. Magitroopa (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect context for quote

In section "Wrongful termination lawsuit", this article states, "...he claimed that she was fired from the show because he thought that she 'would not take us to great' ".

While the second footnote does contain this quote, it has a different context than the one implied here. Also, this quote is not proper English, so it does not make sense to me. I urge that it be removed or changed, but I do not have time to study the issue. David Spector (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

In the table under filmography, Jeopardy!, please change 15 episodes to 5 episodes. Reference is on the jeopardy link to the left on the table. Thanks. 75.161.254.228 (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

15 is correct: "Richards later filled in for two weeks as a guest host of the show, with his first episode airing on February 22, 2021." - those two weeks is 10 episodes right there, and then plus the 5 of the new season makes it 15. Magitroopa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)