Talk:Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live)/Archive 1

message: On Tuesday, June 12th 2007, an episode of Jeopardy aired. The Final Jeopardy category was "Colors". The Question was "Purple". The Answer was (and I'm paraphrasing, perhaps somebody recorded it?) "Politically disputed states are often referred to as this secondary color". Does anyone think this was a reference to the "rhymes with urple" category from celebrity Jeopardy sketches? They've done it before... Mujarimojo 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhymes with Urple 

message: This section could have merit.  However, as it had been written, it represented more of a retelling of the author's favorite jokes from the last two incarnations of the sketch than informative material appropriate for an encyclopedia.  There are already sentences relating to the categories and examples in the text.  The parenthetical information next to each category is unnecessary, and it often quotes the sketch inaccurately.  Croctotheface 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for deleting Sample Categories section 

message: Regarding the addition of "Anal Bum Cover" to the text in the Setup section, I find it basically unnecessary.  The two examples that had been added by the previous editor are more than sufficient to let readers understand the joke, and there is an entire subssection of the article (4.2) that lists ALL such instances.  I'm fearful that the next person who reads the section will be inclined to add "Jap-Anus Relations," and then someone else will decide that it really needs "Famous Titties," and so on.  That said, I'm disinclined to remove text that's otherwise not inappropriate for the section, for the same reason that I dislike adding borderline redundant examples.  Croctotheface 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not add more "example" categories and such 

message: This article does not exist to allow editors to retell their favorite jokes from the sketch. The article exists to talk about the sketch. Where necessary, jokes can be retold as illustrative examples.  In the case of the editor who added "Colors that rhyme with urple" to the text, replacing another category, there are a few important points.  First, there may or may not be categories that are more illustrative of what the show is getting at than others.  Personally, I think that one example of such a joke ("ends in -amburger," "-urple," "Movies that start with the word Jaws," "States that begin with Californ" and on and on) is plenty.  Second, by and large, I can't really see any particular category name being more illustrative than another.  Also, I don't really think that more than one example category is necessary. There is a complete list of categories later in the article. Third, the sketch did not include a category named "Colors that rhyme with urple;" the category was "Colors that end in 'urple'", and you'd know that if you checked the exhaustive list of categories later in the article.  Accuracy is important, so, please, if you're going to make these kinds of edits, at least get the information right so that it doesn't contradict the article as it is. Croctotheface 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fun with examples 

message: The February 8th 2001 one isn't a proper episode of the show, so anyone searching for it will be in for the same tedium I was. Why remove the notice saying that? It was one of the prime time specials, isn't in syndication and hasn't been repeated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.87.143.3 (talk • contribs) 05:48, July 24, 2006  (UTC)
:First off, is the date "incorrect," as your section header says? If it's actually incorrect, meaning that the Celebrity Jeopardy sketch did not air on that date, please change it to the correct date. If the date in the article is correct, then the section is informative, as it is about episodes of the SKETCH, not episodes of SNL. Whether or not it aired on Saturday or Thursday is not notable. Somebody reading might appreciate knowing who the musical guests were for each SNL episode that included a Celebrity Jeopardy sketch, but that doesn't mean that such information is relevant to this article. Also, the note that I removed wasn't even NPOV, as what constitutes "a true episode" is subjective. Croctotheface 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Incorrect Date 

message: The reason I feel it is important to mention is that it says Turd Ferguson ON HIS PODIUM. Therefore, I feel it needs to be mentioned, as it creates a humorous dialogue between the two, and is still an important part of the sketch. After all, does a character allegedly "change their name" in any other one of the sketches? I thought not. Also, I think we should add a memorable quotes section not including any of the misinterpreted categories, because there is definitely some pretty funny stuff in the sketches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.50.13 (talk • contribs) 21:13, July 31, 2006  (UTC)
: First off, please sign your posts. Why is it so notable that a character changes his name but still dresses and behaves the same way, and then answers to his real name?  What makes that so important?  That it was written on his podium?  You can't even see the podiums most of the time. It was one joke, referenced twice in the sketch, and that's it.  
:I'd also be opposed to a creation of the memorable quotes section because it would completely overwhelm the article.  Nobody would be able to agree on what deserves to be there, so it would just become a huge mess and basically read like a transcript of every single sketch. Besides, the article has a link to transcripts anyway. If you want to put up a Celebrity Jeopardy fanpage on Geocities with your favorite quotes from the sketch, I won't email you to complain. However, Wikipedia is not that fanpage. Croctotheface 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that I considered your Turd Ferguson edits vandalism, but I did find it frustrating that after I reverted your first edit, you reverted back without responding to my comments in talk.  I appreciate that you responded this time. I agree that it would be useful to have more people comment to see if there is some kind of consensus to be found.  I'll just respond briefly to the rest of what you said. First off, on "Ferguson," I'll stand by what I've said already: it was just two jokes, not any kind of actual pseudonym, and I see no reason the joke is more worthy of mention than any other. As far as why I'm so vehement about keeping it out, I could ask the same thing about why you're so vehement about putting it in.  I would hope we both have better things to do than discuss this, but I don't think that makes me less right about what I'm saying. Regarding incorporating a list of quotes, I'm pretty confident that what I described will happen because it basically happened once already. The Episodes section used to include "memorable categories,comments and misreadings." It was this huge mess of poorly paraphrased and misquoted jokes. A lot of the stuff people added was pretty run-of-the-mill for the sketch, and the list kept growing and growing until I finally removed it. The issue is that there's no standard for what's memorable, as everybody who comes along probably considers different lines "memorable" in the sense that they and their friends quote them from time to time. If the standard were only that quotes need to be funny, then basically every line from the sketch, with the possible exception of stuff like "Mr. Connery, would you like to pick a category", would merit inclusion. You may have a good project for Wikiquote, though, if you want to compile something there and then link to it from here. Croctotheface 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Turd Ferguson should be in the article, listed next to Burt Reynolds' name. The fact that I can do a search for "Turd Ferguson" and get a redirect to the Celebrity Jeopardy! article is reason enough to list it in the article. luckado 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that it should be included for comedy value?  Or should the article include every possible search string that could return information about the sketch? Croctotheface 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's guideline on redirects seems to indicate that the terms used in them should be mentioned in the first couple paragraphs of the page (WP:R).  Given that the Turd ferguson redirect exists, can you come up with an acceptable way to mention it somewhere on the page?  --GargoyleMT 15:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I'm seeing, Wikipedia:Redirects says we are to "make clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place" and that the redirect is normally mentioned within the first paragraph.  On those grounds I am reverting today's edit to re-attach the Turd Ferguson name to Burt Reynolds.  If Croctotheface reverts it back I will chalk this up as an edit war and let it go, and will suggest that users open a Request for Comment.  -Rolypolyman 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning Turd Ferguson somewhere, but there really isn't cause to put it where it currently is.  The reason it's gone there, I suspect, is that people have videos of the sketch that they downloaded from some peer to peer service that called the episode "Connery, Stewart, Ferguson" or something of that nature.  I would assume that both of you would agree that it would be inappropriate to mention one trivial joke in the lead paragraph of this article.  The point of the guideline you've cited is to clarify to someone who searched for something and thought "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?"  In this case, I would submit that someone who searched for Turd Ferguson knows exactly what they're searching for, as there is only one use that I've heard of.  I'd be fine with opening an RfC, though it's over a pretty trivial difference of opinion.  In this case, I'm opposed to saying that Reynolds is "also known as" Turd Ferguson because nobody really "knew" him as such, it was just a joke his character did that came up at two points in one sketch and was not referred to again within that episode of the sketch or any other. Croctotheface 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edits are a nice resolution, I think.  I considered the argument that people will already know the origin of a term they try to look up on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it is a fair assumption since there are so many pieces of popular culture that people make reference to.  As an example, I can easily see someone using "Turd Ferguson" as a pseudonym with no handy reference to its origins.  Incidentally, the redirect page says the name may have originated with The Kids in the Hall.  (Too much detail for here, but interesting.)  --GargoyleMT 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully Settling the Turd Ferguson thing once and for all 

message: It wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, unless I'm missing something.  Croctotheface 04:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for deleting the Japan-U.S. trivia item? 

message: My instinct is to revert them, but I'll put it out here first instead. I don't including them because they are not examples so much as an exhaustive list and because I'm concerned that the focus of the section describing the sketch should be describing the sketch rather than retelling jokes that individual editors happen to enjoy.  I don't really think that examples are necessary to illustrate the concept, but even if they are, I'd be in favor of drawing the line at ONE example.  Anyway, I'll wait a bit and then go ahead and make the change. Croctotheface 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't like the addition of "Richard Nixon" and "I Have a Chardonnay" as examples 

message: What characters did he play? -Mike Payne 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jimmy Fallon]] 

message: It is abundantly clear that Connery supplies correct answers to several of the questions.  While his intention is not to give a correct response to earn money for the purpose of winning the game, that does not somehow make a correct response incorrect.  If the question is "write anything" and Connery makes some sort of mark, then he fulfilled the requirements set by the question and therefore has provided a correct answer.  The only way a person could "appear" to get something right without actually getting it right is if there is something that makes appearance and reality different. Croctotheface 06:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He appears to get it right, and then it turns out that it is not an answer at all as that is not the intended purpose, he is insulting the host. Whatever, two different ways of saying the same thing I suppose. -Mike Payne 06:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I appreciate that I am being somewhat nitpicky here, Connery's intent has no bearing whatsoever on whether his answer is or is not right.  Using the word "appear" is incorrect because it makes the sentence mean that Connery's answer is not correct.  "0 + 0 - 0 = 0" is a math problem a first grader would know, and it is therefore a correct response.  It would also be incorrect to say that Connery "appears to be a contestant" on the show, although by the logic you're using, because he does not care about winning the game, he isn't really a contestant either. Croctotheface 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted... I changed it back. -Mike Payne 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gets Final Jeopardy right" vs. "appears to get it right" 

message: Some of this is original resarch, such as this line: Connery eventually demonstrated that he is aware of the nature of the show and capable of answering the questions, but he simply enjoys making rude jokes and frustrating Trebek more than attempting to win the game.  Other things are direct interpretations beyond just the facts, like Later on, Trebek became aware of this strategy.  There's probably more, but I'd like someone to thoroughly reraed it for OR.  And I'd also like secondary sources that have commented on this skit as well, but I'm not holding my breath. hbdragon88 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the only secondary source that has quoted on this was Alex Trebek himself, who during a televised interview revealed that Sean Connery was never a contestant on Jeopardy, & made a public invitation to Connery to appear someday on the game show. (Sorry, I don't remember any identifying details about the interview, just that it happened years ago.) If Connery ever appears on jeopardy, it doubtlessly would be one of the most-watched episodes of the show. -- llywrch 23:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: We've spent days going back and forth on this.  I really don't think it's had any affect.  I don't mind this kind of thing, so I don't want to say it was wasted time.  However, I don't think there's really a purpose to continuing further.  I and 141... will not be able to agree or compromise.  As of now, we have two current opinions against the "Turd" version and your opinion in favor.  Regarding older discussions of this matter, I think it's fair to say that the other editors who wished to add "Turd" were persuaded that it was not a productive change.  I recall the one editor who wanted to mention "Turd" becuase of the Turd Ferguson redirect, and he was satisfied with mentioning the name in the appropriate place "the "the sketch" section) rather the inappropriate place (the "episodes" section).  Vehicles for further comment, such as WP:RFC, is probably a necessary step.  I will not reiterate my arguments here; if someone really wants to review them above, they're welcome.  I'd be happy to clarify anything if another user wants me to.  Croctotheface 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I unfortunately did not have to opportunity to participate in this discussion, so I do feel somewhat cheated here actually. Recognizing the disagreement among the editors: some want it in, some don't, I think the fair default is to put in it, since surely it doesn't harm the article. The joke is about an assumed name and an assumed name belongs in a list of character names. 141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless, more than anything else at this stage, I am impressed by how very reactionary you all are. Even the new point of view editors are this way! Adding 'aka Turd Ferguson' does not logically force you to add or subtract anything else from the list - its too small an edit for that. I really have no idea how y'all came up with the idea that it forces you to add 'chief' jokes and all this other sort of nonsense. Soon, I am not convinced by anything I have seen here. 141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  What I am convinced of is that I should no longer try to help wikipedia in any way. Which is your loss - with my login (which I haven't used here)  I have authored or co-authored about a dozen articles.  After witnessing the above (and below) discussion it appears the spirit of wikipedia is the spirit of reactionary editors unwilling to allow regular users to make even minor edits without ridiculous over-analysis aimed at discrediting even minor changes.  141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have an account, why did you use these five different IP accounts instead?  Croctotheface 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the very beginning, (even before our discussion when first made the effort) it appeared as though you were accusing anybody making the 'Turd Ferguson' edit of vandalism. More than anything else, actually, thats what has annoyed me here. Anyway, I considered this an indignity, since I believe the edit is entirely correct and appropriate. However, I wasn't about to get my account locked or anything like that. So I just posted as an unsigned in user. 141.166.154.204 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, you didn't sign in so that you could evade the 3RR?  Croctotheface 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I didn't sign in because I believed there was a potential for administrative retaliation. It is inappropriate to declare an edit vanaldism on its face, espeically when it is accurate. 141.166.227.172 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  In any event, as a gesture of good will, I will now log in and propose a compromise. h/o 141.166.227.172 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is futile. 

message: At the start of the article it describes this sketch as re-occurring, and then requests a citation. I don't think it's necessary to cite that this sketch re-occurs. That much is easily observed by anyone who watches SNL. Or by making a quick jaunt over to Youtube.
What should be cited instead is the last sentence, "Thirteen sketches have been aired to date, two per season from 1996 to 2002, and one in 2005." if anything.  --SquidMoose 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: At the top of the page it states that Will Ferrel Played Trebek in all 13 skits. It later states in the "End of the Sketch" section that Trebek played himself for a sketch. This is a contradiction. Rekov (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One sketch had two Trebeks.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alex Trebek Actor

message: I remember an interview with Alex Trebek where he claimed he wants to have Sean Connery participate as a contestant in real life, partially due to the parody. Does anybody have a clip of this? ----DanTD (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, but if we find a source, we could definitely mention it in the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I remember an episode of the real Jeopardy (I think Ferrell or at least comedians were the category) and the question was along the lines of 'In 2008 this comedian won an emmy for his one man show about his impersonation of George Bush, not moi.' Would that deserve to be mentioned on this page? Tydamann (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Relationship with the real ''Jeopardy!'' 

message: This should be a featured article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.201.8 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be featured