Talk:Family Feud

Family Fortunes

I think the UK version Family Fortunes deserves its own entry (Play Your Cards Right has an entry separate from that for Card Sharks) - how do I change it from a redirect to an entry in its own right? RobinCarmody 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If you submit 'Family Fortunes' into the Search box, it takes you to the Family Feud page with "(Redirected from Family Fortunes)" at the top. Click on the 'Family Fortunes', and then click Edit This Page. BillyH 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Family Feud (Combs)/temp

A new temporary article (hence the "/temp" suffix in the title)on the Ray Combs version from 1988-1995 is now up. I figured of that version getting its own article since I'm seeing other versions of this game show getting its own article; plus there is an article on the short lived 1994 Doug Davidson-hosted version of The Price is Right. Anyway the main Family Feud page is getting too long (about 40 kilobytes), and I thought I might take the next step in article expanding (like I did in creating the Digimon: Digital Monsters (anime) from the main Digimon article in 2004). And if anyone appreciates the new Combs version article (which I hope will be pernament), the Dawson version (and possibly the current version) will get its own article. I'm also hoping by the end of this summer that I can create an article on the NBC Match Game and the short-lived 2001-2002 Card Sharks, which rules were different from the CBS and NBC versions. Okay???--Roadrunner3000 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, each game show revival should never have its own article unless it's drastically different from the previous format. Such as like Break the Bank could have their own articles if needs be, but Combs' version of Feud was discernable from Dawson's aside from a minor change in format, lack of play and pass, and the Bullseye round. Otherwise it's still the same. -TonicBH 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sept. 2006 logo

Just to let everyone know, the logo added for the O'Hurley run of Feud is indeed the new logo. It is featured on the box for the new PS2 game and was confirmed to be the logo by someone who attended the taping. In conclusion, keep it there. It's real. ;) - Chad1m 03:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Chinese names

In the international versions section, the Bulgarian title was given only as "Семейни войни". Also, the Taiwanese version was 大家一起來 ("Everybody Come Together"), hosted only by "趙樹海".

Could someone provide the English name of the Bulgarian title, as well as their local names of both versions (and the Taiwanese host) in the local language, using the English alphabet? -- azumanga 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I added a romanization of the Chinese names. -Adjusting 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Karn

Did he quit or something?--Richard 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His contract was not renewed. Lambertman 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Two episodes each day?

On many stations showing Family Feud (such as WEAU-TV and WMLW-CA) there are two daily airings of Family Feud. Is one a repeat? If so, why is there never a repeat from the Karn seasons on? --Libertyernie2 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is so there is no confusion for new viewers. Crinos43 08:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Family Feud Set Evolution?"

Hey guys, I was wondering, since the article is becoming "very long," d'you think an article on the set of Family Feud would be appropriate? I was thinking of having it resemble the Jeopardy! set evolution article. What do you think? Green Lantern40 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be needed. If the article was proofread and had a lot of the needless trivia removed, it could be far more manageable, simple as that. 68.79.132.216 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a separate article for it? The three consoles used on the version hosted by John O'Hurley look to me like they could be the original 1970's consoles, redecorated. The two big ones sag in the middle just like the originals. Bizzybody (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The set evolution of Family Feud is unencyclopedic information catering to a specific audience (i.e., fancruft). It does not belong in this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Independence for sections

Since sections like "International versions" and "References in popular culture" is getting too long, I was wondering if it gets its own independence from this article like "The Price Is Right around the world" and "The Price Is Right in popular culture". What do you think? --Gh87 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An excellent solution

I agree with your solution; let's break it up in the same manner as "The Price is Right". ProfessorPaul 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo of O'Hurley

Could someone capture a picture without a local logo bug inserted? If not, its not that big a deal, but it would make the page look cleaner. --Libertyernie2 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Splits complete

So said, so done! Worry no more, Family Feud has been sectioned into four: broadcast history, rules and production, around the world and in popular culture. You like? --Aaronhumes 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that was not what we're suggesting because it could ruin the main article. How about this: "around the world", "Combs", "Dawson", "Fremantle", and any other idea from somebody... And another thing, I added {{uncategorized}} in each of its spinoff. Can we merge everything you seperated back into the main article while other editors were still working on it? --Gh87 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a "Family Feud (Combs)" article, but it was merged with this one. And I'll admit, these splits are a bit cheap and ineffective. I've rescued the date from the old Combs article; if need be, should we re-create it using the same text? Green lantern

Okay, how about this in another way: 1976, 1988, 1999, popular culture, around the world, etc. What do you think? --Gh87 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I like that idea. D'you think we could use the same text from what was once the "Family Feud (Combs)" article? Because as mentioned above I rescued it. Do you also think we should have a separate article for Dawson's 1994 return or no? Green lantern

Actually, the company did not cancel the 1988 revival until 1995, so nay. --Gh87 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the rules back into the main article, minus all the fancruft. The note about the home games and the reference to that article has also been moved back from the "production" page to the main page (since the home games have nothing to do with production.) The "rules and production" page has been edited to reflect these changes. Some of these splits still need work, as they are sloppy and have unrelated information in them, stuff that is not encyclopedic and belongs on fan websites instead, etc. --Goldrushcavi 00:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here because I saw this on TV for the first time in years and I really don't like the splits. 68.103.207.65 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Goldrushcavi, I hadn't meant to take the rules out of the article. Perhaps we can merge the first two articles (log all the extra stuff under each host), and keep the others separate, as I mentioned on my talk page. Sorry for taking so long to respond (Christmas/university break). Let's get to work!--Aaronhumes 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the $25,000 limit rule for ABC's Family Feud was opposed by ABC, because Break the Bank had a limit of $20,000.

Whoever typed that, apparently, you're right. The first family to crack the $25,000 mark did so in September of 1976. Break the Bank was canceled two months before. Adam2981 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Might want to reword this

"The current version with John O'Hurley is in first-run syndication and has been since 1999." Makes it soundlike O'Hurley hosted since 1999. --Evildevil 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. That better? The Green Lantern 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bullseye/ Bankroll game

What kind of bonehead came up with The Bullseye/ bankroll game in the first place huh? It caused a ratings plummet from 1992 till Combs was fired in 1994. They brought back Mr. "Kiss the ladies" and changed it from "bullseye" to "Bankroll." Ratings went back up but they cancelled the Feud at the end of the 1994-1995 season anyway. Bullseye never came back when Feud returned in 1999 and I don't want it to ever again. OK? E2e3v6 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Famfeud.jpeg

Image:Famfeud.jpeg 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 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RD25143.jpg

Image:RD25143.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 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Richard dawson.jpg

Image:Richard dawson.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 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Limits on winnings

I know the ABC version had champs retire after $25,000, but how does anyone know the limit was raised to $30,000. I've seen Google blogs claiming that it was $50,000 during the final year. Also, I have a hunch that champs on the Family Feud Challenge from '92-'93 continued until winning over $100,000, and $125,000 on the New Family Feud from '92-'95.

Adam2981 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the name of the family was that won the most money and how much they won during the period of the syndicated show where there was no limit on prize money or appearance times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.197.101 (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

O'Hurley episodes in reruns question?

How is it possible that ION and GSN are going to run the "first two seasons" of his version, when season two is clearly still in first run syndication on the local stations?

I fixed the GSN note about it, because, even if it is true, it'll be quite a while until they reach that point anyhow. It doesn't seem like they'd reach that point if they have both seasons or not. ION is a different story, when it was Pax, they ran Weakest Link episodes that were fresh off NBC, so I wouldn't doubt them having season two episodes in their acquisition. Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of technical details of syndication and cable contracts that the public doesn't have access to. We can't establish for a fact either that they can or that they can't run episodes on either GSN or ION that have aired in the same season in first-run syndication. ION/Pax used to have a programming relationship with NBC that allowed for almost immediate rebroadcast of some NBC programming on Pax; I don't know whether that relationship still exists. In any case, the more important point is that Wikipedia is not a TV listing. I'm editing down the whole discussion to one sentence that O'Hurley episodes (with no information as to which ones, since that can't yet be confirmed) will begin airing on the date given. I'm not sure Buzzerblog is a reliable source, since GSN hasn't reported this itself, but I'll leave that for now. JTRH (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Text generator technology

Does anyone know what kind of technology was used to power the "big board" back in the 1970s? Did they actually have a computer system? Or was it a custom built electronic system? -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They used trilons to reveal the correct answers back then, sometimes with delay prompting multiple "Survey says!" calls and a few jokes about waking up the person flipping the switches behind the scenes. The "big board" itself was a large trilon, with each answer its own one-panel sized trilon. SeattleOtaku (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I presume the question was about the Fast Money board. Was it a digital electronic system that drove it or was it a manually operated analog system or some combination? The John O'Hurley hosted version appears to use a computer graphics simulation of the original Fast Money board, same for the answer boards. I've always figured the reason for the big board having three sides was so answers could be installed in one side while a game was being played with the other side. Bizzybody (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't swear to it, but I thought I read somewhere the Fast Money board was designed in 1976 to resemble an airport flight schedule board, in that it didn't use lightbulbs, it instead used tiny panels which were flourescent yellow on one side, and black on the other. This design was used so that the board wouldn't be drowned out in the heavy studio lighting. This info, I believe, came from a late-1970s book on game shows by Maxene Fabe (spelling?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blozier2006 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

$30,000 Bullseye and Car additions

Does anyone have clear, verifiable references for these items? There are links to twitter and buzzerblog now, but neither is what would be considered "100% reliable." Sottolacqua (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't the show itself be cited for such things? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Photo RayCombs.jpg

I'm just checking to make sure you guys deleted this on purpose. Honestly, I don't remember uploading it. I think it was just a GIF I converted to a JPEG.

I've kept a copy, so if you need it back, hit me up on my talk page. — trlkly 07:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)?

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)

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)

new name

family feud should be called racial feud