Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive 1

message: "If you decide ahead of time that your strategy is to go for a perfect game, your chances become much better. In trying for a perfect game, you will not select the low questions ($200/$400) until the end of each round. In Single Jeopardy, there is a 1:5 chance of the board being set up correctly, and you have a 1:6 chance of choosing the Daily Double Last, giving you a 1:30 chance of maxing Single Jeopardy. In Double Jeopardy, there is a 1:29 chance of the board being set up right, and a 1:15 chance of choosing the daily doubles last. So, if you decide ahead of time to try for a perfect game, and manage to get all the questions, then you have a 1:13050 chance."
I have to take issue with some of the phrasing in the above paragraph. The board being set up "correctly" implies that there is something "incorrect" about having daily doubles below the first row, when, in reality, they ALWAYS are. As this isn't the rule but is always the case it shouldn't affect the theoretical maximum, but I think with these mathmatical statistics people are forgetting the fact that the theoretical maximum is just that. No one will ever win 566 whatever thousand dollars on jeopardy, and no one will ever "try" for a perfect game. It's well beyond anyone's control. The calculations suppose the placings of daily doubles are random when they obviously aren't. If someone is positive they will get every clue correct and wants only to make as much as possible in one game they will certainly pick the higher values last, because they want the daily doubles to be the final clues, and they're usually in the bottom 2 rows. So the 1:30 chance of maxing Single Jeopardy has no bearing. And of course this discounts the probability of a contestant getting every clue right, which is, of course, impossible to calculate. I applaud the mathmatics used in reaching these numbers, but in practice they are, frankly, meaningless within the scope of the game. -R. fiend 01:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect game 

message: I figured I'd put this up for a vote, since it's always a touchy subject to remove a link to someone's personal website.
Of the External Links area of the page, the link Funny Jeopardy! Answers is, for one thing, mislabeled, in that it's a site that supposedly hosts Game Show flubs from multiple shows, not just Jeopardy!.  Also, if you click the links for "United States flubs" and "United Kingdom flubs", both return a 404 error.  Basically, there's no real content to be found, and according to the timestamp at the top of the page, it hasn't been updated in over 6 weeks.
The vote is to remove the links until such a time that the site owner either fixes the 404 error, or adds content to the page.  Please type your name with 4 tildes (~) under either "For" or "Against" to vote, and add a comment next to it if you like.
Sincerely,
Ral315 03:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on Removing a Link 

message: There is an inconsistency on this page, not sure which is correct.  
"There have been rare instances where there have been two contestants who have finished in either zero or negative scoring in one show, but never all three contestants."
then later:
"If no contestant finishes with a positive total (i.e., at least $1), then nobody wins and three new contestants appear on the following show; in such cases the three players will participate in a backstage draw to determine player position. The three-way loss has happened three times since 1984."
The second phrasing seems correct since it contains more specific information, but I'm loathe to delete since i have no idea. 
Scarykitty
: I've looked at it and have made the necessary adjustments. Thanks for the heads-up. --OntarioQuizzer 01:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency on Triple Losers 

message: "A few years after composing the song, Griffin added 2 timpani notes at the end so that it would meet the 30-second minimum length required to secure a copyright on the song."
Can someone provide a verifiable source for this claim?  I don't know of any provision in copyright law that sets a minimum duration for a composition.  (Indeed, had the song been performed at a slightly slower tempo, it would have been thirty seconds long!) 
It may be the case that there's a minimum length require to copyright the recorded performance of the song (and even this I'm skeptical of), but the copyright of a sound recording is separate from the copyright of the composed work.  
----Heath 66.32.1.24 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Timpani strikes -- source? 

message: The article has under the Tournament of Champions
:Finals
::* Monday, 13 May: Rutter $11,000, Newhouse $0, Verini $6,800
::* Tuesday, 14 May: Rutter $13,801, Newhouse $25,600, Verini $800
:Totals: Rutter $25,601; Newhouse $25,600; and Verini $7,600. Rutter wins the Million Dollar Masters Touranment and the $1 million grand prize.
My question is: how do 11,000 and 13,801 added equal 25,601? Could somebody check these numbers, preferably from the original source?
Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: says that Rutter had $11,800. --Andy Saunders 04:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Add Up 

message: About the "What is?" being strictly enforced: I distinctly remember a contestant answering in more unconventional ways. Among others, he answered, "Who?" to a question about the who and, "(someone's name), what's that?" Both were accepted, though Alex commented on the multiple-day winner's cockiness. Anyone else remember this guy?
Also, I'd like to see some mention of the fact that the "answers" are nothing like the answer you'd give to their question if the question was asked of you. For example, say a kid asks his father, "Who's Abraham Lincoln?" and the father answers, "Well, this president grew a beard because a girl told him it would make his face look better." Of course, if they used more realistic answers, it wouldn't work. Compare:
:It's the year that the Model T was invented.
:What is 1903?
to:
:1903
:What's a number that's almost 2000?
That would technically be correct, but it wouldn't be what the producers intended. Ken Jennings's famous "What's a hoe?" answer illustrates producer intent as well. Hoe (ho) was an acceptable answer, but it wasn't what they intended the answer to be. Anyway, back to the original thing I said. CrossEyed7 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect.  Rakes are purely pleasure seekers, while most hoes are (for lack of a better word) slaves to either pimps or a fruitless search for love, not pleasure.
In a recent episode (I don't recall if it was a GSN repeat or new episode), a contestant forgot to answer in the form of a question for a Daily Double. Alex gave it to her anyway, citing that "we don't penalize for that in the first round." However, after the commercial break, they nullified the score, because the rule doesn't apply to the Daily Double. Can anyone else confirm this? Mshake3 00:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd probably get more of a response if you asked your question here (on the Jeopardy! message boards). Andy Saunders 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of a question 

message: I'm going to start a "Categories" section.  Three usual topics are given in the very first intro paragraph, but I think that much more can be said about usual categories.  If anyone has any thoughts on this, please let me know.  --Eric Jack Nash 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I just did the above.  I took part of a paragraph in the "Game Play" section.  If someone else thinks it is appropriate to modify either so that there isn't repetition, be my guest.  --Eric Jack Nash 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea. Twelve categories per day for 22 years = a list that could get out of hand in a hurry. Lambertman 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not suggesting listing every category, just common categories, like one I just saw while watching the show - "Crossword Clues".  Is that OK?  --Eric Jack Nash 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Someone told me that before contestants come on the show, they are given a broad selection of categories by the producers to help them study for the show.  
Can anyone confirm/deny this?
:It's not true.--Mathew5000 09:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  We got no suggestion of anything to study. Mschnippert 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely false. Andy Saunders 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The closest I can think of is that they cover "Before and After", the use of quotation marks in Category titles, and I think one other quirk which isn't obvious to the casual viewer. They do this for all potential contestants who have passed the test, so there's no indication that any of those will actually appear on the show at any given time. -R. fiend 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contestants given a broad idea of the categories? 

message: I see there's only a short blurb on pop culture...is there going to be a list at any point (or has there been one that is now deleted)?  I was hoping to see (or add) the Pinky and the Brain one, in which the Brain loses Final Jeopardy because he has failed to pay attention to Pinky the entire episode (and thus failed to remember the line Pinky has been repeating the entire episode: "Pow, bang, right in the kisser!" and the person Pinky attributes this line to). Kilyle 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in luck... it has been given its own article. --Goldrushcavi 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Culture References? 

message: I have begun moving some of the larger sections over to their own articles, beginning with the set and the audition procedures.  The article is still over 47K long and could use some more cleanup work... --Goldrushcavi 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections 

message: Stable versioning is being tested on this article.  This means that all editing will be made on Jeopardy!/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page.  If you disagree with the current version, please let me know.  Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable versioning tested on this article. 

message: I removed the line about Regis Philbin being a frequent guest on Celebrity Jeopardy! I saw a recent interview with WABC-TV in which Alex Trebek said that Philbin will be appearing on Celebrity Jeopardy! for the third time this fall. If 3 appearances are "frequent," I must be wrong. Tinlinkin 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of the show, 3 is frequent, IMO. Andy Saunders 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the more frequent guests?  The most frequent guest?  I don't know.  Ral315 (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the October 4, 2006 Live with Regis and Kelly show, Trebek said that Philblin is "the only celebrity we would have had as a contestant on the program three times." So he would be the celebrity that has appeared the most, and I'm now convinced of that. I wonder if his luck with the buzzer will change this time, :) Tinlinkin 06:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regis a frequent Jeopardy! contestant? 

message: I nominated the article Craig Westphal, a recent winner on Jeopardy!, for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Westphal a few days ago. It is currently orphaned within the Wikipedia article namespace. Please go to the AfD page to share your comments. Thanks. Tinlinkin 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Craig Westphal]] for deletion 

message: I have posted a free Jeopardy program that is great for teachers (Build Your Own Jeopardy), but it has been removed repeatedly.  This program is great tool for teachers and not for any profit!  Why then has it been deleted?  There are other software programs and hardware related to Jeopardy! that remain on this page, but they are not removed.  They are all commercial products and for profit.  They are not adding to this type of community work(Wikipedia), but they all remain posted.  I see no reason why Build Your Own Jeopardy should be removed. User:Dougwolfejr
: Simple; it's not officially licenced by the show (or a resource relating to the show itself)...therefore, I see no reason for it to be on the page. Andy Saunders 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section's purpose is to document officially licensed, commercially-produced Jeopardy! merchandise.  The Links section is for links that relate directly to the show.  "Build Your Own Jeopardy" falls into neither category, and so has no place on this Wikipedia page.  Also, please place new talk messages at the bottom of the Talk page, and don't forget to sign your comments. Robert K S 01:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Then make a new section.  This does not seem in the spirit of the GFDL.   You are marketing certain commercial products, but not allowing users to find information on other products that may be of use to them.  Look up Jeopardy! on google and more than one of the top ten links is for educationally available materials.  Why not make an educational section or something similar?Dougwolfejr 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, it does not appear to fit under the WP:EL criteria for external links.  Preferred external links are to databases of information regarding the subject, or the subject's official pages.  Also, links that you own should not be posted, even if they meet the guidelines to be included.  In that case, posting on the talk page of the article and seeing if someone else agrees to post it (via consensus) is the way to go. Wyv 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What about adding an educational section?  There is at least one link I would make to a powerpoint and information related to a powerpoint jeopardy that thousands of teachers who use wikipedia would find helpful.  Although, I think the powerpoint isn't very good that is why I made the software.  I think it would be a useful section for all the educators who use this site.24.91.212.69 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandising Section 

message: I went to Page O'Clips, and I saw two versions of 1984 incarnation's pilot. One was with the set that reincarnated the 1964 & 1978 set and different theme, and the other was with the theme and set we know today but in different colors and music arrangement. If you don't believe me, click there before it disappears within a few months. --Gh87 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two pilot versions of well-known 1984 incarnation 

message: I added that template because I saw the size and felt that because sections of several well-known versions, like the 1984 syndicated one hosted by Alex Trebek, are getting too long. Either they must be trimmed down or they must have their own spinoff. --Gh87 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag.  Everyone who edits this article is aware that it is beyond the recommended size.  There are no fewer than 13 dedicated sub-articles already, and no section is currently especially expendable or spin-off-able.  Moreover, the actual trend of the article in recent days has been reduction rather than increase in size.  Rather than adding a verylong tag, which increases the article's apparent size, be bold and try to spin-off some sections in some way that makes sense to you.  Deletion of material, however, will create more problems than it solves, as the article is already considerably evolved specifically to address special cases and oddities in the rules, alternate versions of the show, etc. Robert K S 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is not just for regular users it's for categorizing it for potential editors who regularly do that sort of editing of articles and trimming. Quadzilla99 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise: Moved too long tag onto talk page which should serve to categorize it somewhat for other editors. Quadzilla99 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding {{tl|verylong}} into top of the article 

message: I've finished converting all the lists of contestants at Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions, Jeopardy! College Championship, Jeopardy! Teen Tournament, and Celebrity Jeopardy!. My choices of colors in the lists were arbitrary, but I feel blue is an appropriate color for the Jeopardy! motif, and it is used to connect the articles (e.g. "Alex Trebek Era"). I hope the conversion to tables doesn't preclude other users in editing the lists. But more importantly, I hope the conversion is helpful for viewing each article. The previous format looked too cumbersome and primitive for me. Tinlinkin 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks!  Looks much better.  (The colors might be tweaked further for readability.) Robert K S 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of contestant lists to tables 

message: I wanted to add  because there were a couple of well-known versions, and some sections get a lot of more attention than others. But I need some approval. What do you think? --Gh87 09:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you want to split references to the Fleming version to their own article?  While I think it's a good idea, I think so for different reasons, and I do not believe it will appreciably shorten the article. Robert K S 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's official: the template is added. --Gh87 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article need its own spinoffs? 

message: At what time during the "Sushi Bar" set did the opening change from the contestants walking on the stage behind their podiums? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contestant Intro 

message: I noticed a recent edit changed a part about Alex leaving as Jeopardy!'s producer from halfway through Season 3 to the end of Season 3.  I did some fact checking and, according to the Eisenberg book, that is correct--Alex's last shows as producer were a Seniors Tournament taped at the end of Season 3. Robert K S 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex's departure as producer 

message: I believe this should be deleted.  It says above only to move the Fleming part out, but that was in October.  Reywas92Talk 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split tag 

message: there was a mexican version of jeopardy! once, like 5 years ago 
::And, as of 2007, there is a version of the show running in Finland.83.245.225.189 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been running in Sweden since 1991 and is (or used to be) one of the most popular TV sows in the country. This article is quite US centric - there should be an article about the general concept and then spin-off articles about versions in various countries.--Bonadea 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  I wonder how the general concept can be separated from the Trebek version of the show, though, given that the history leads up to the Trebek version (there were no international versions before Trebek) and the rules stem from the Trebek version (i.e. any variations in rules for the international versions are variations of the U.S. rules).  That is to say, how could the show's rules be described in a general article if they differ, however minutely, in international spin-off versions?  And how could the broadcast histories of the international versions be described in their individual articles without ultimately referring back to the Trebek version? Robert K S 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International versions 

message: I found Jeopardy! International Championship. It should probably be integrated into the main article. I loved Per Gunnar's response to "if you stick out your shita..." Tinlinkin 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find.  Needs some work to conform it with the other tournament articles. Robert K S 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Championship 

message: Some IP user changed the name from "Darryl" into "Daryl".  How can we point out which is correct? --Gh87 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Darryl" vs. "Daryl" 

message: if the person answers all questions correct
and dailly doubles are one of least amounts and are last questions
i got this 844800 but dont if its right or if i use right numbers
:It in in the article at Jeopardy!#Cash prizes.  Reywas92TalkSigs 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the most a person can win in 1 show 

message: If a player is in debt at the end of a round, they are automatically eliminated from the round. Do they have to pay it back? 67.188.172.165 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only on The Simpsons. Robert K S 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I saw that episode. Good one, no they don't. Quadzilla99 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debt 

message: You know what would be good for this article, one of those short little audio clips that are used for name pronunciation except used for a short synthesized version of the theme song considering how well-known it has become. It could go in the theme song section obviously. Quadzilla99 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that could be considered fair use, irrespective of clip length. Robert K S 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you did a home made version on a keyboard or something? Quadzilla99 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you sang it off-key. Robert K S 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily for us you're wrong Robert: I'll set about finding us a clip. Quadzilla99 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, boss, as long as it's limited to the first six notes or so.  "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples may not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter."  Robert K S 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tone down the sarcasm "Boss". I guess I was wrong however you were also when you commented sarcastically that "even if you sang it off key", you couldn't add the song. Please keep in mind WP:Civil when you comment. Wikipedia editing is not a contest, no one's keeping score. Quadzilla99 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I was a little confrontational myself if so, I apologize. Quadzilla99 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture.  As that debate may have an impact on this article (particularly when people propose merging), I thought it would be only fair that the editors of this page be made aware of the debate.  Mangojuicetalk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article nominated for deletion 

message: ===General===
Is potent potables really all that common anymore? This hasn't appeared in years, with the possible exception of in Celebrity Jeopardy on SNL.
Also: are  "X-letter words," "The Answer Lies Within" and the "Three Choices" legitimate categories? They have been becoming more and more popular since mid-2005. (see revision at 14:52 22 Apr 2007)
:Potent potables is a classic category, so it is kept.  'Lies Within' and 'choices' are quite rare, but recurring.  Argueably, all of these could be used on the article, but we don't want to be a directory of categories.  'World capitals' and 'Shakespeare' are common categories as well, but we don't want to overcrowd the secton.  Also, be sure to add your comment to the bottom of a talk page, so it is easier to find, and to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).  Cheers!  Reywas92Talk 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think this is notable for inclusion, I would argue that it is not. It is very typical of the show to do theme rounds such as this. Andy Saunders 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Is potent potables really all that common anymore? This hasn't appeared in years, with the possible exception of in Celebrity Jeopardy on SNL.
Also: are  "X-letter words," "The Answer Lies Within" and the "Three Choices" legitimate categories? They have been becoming more and more popular since mid-2005. (see revision at 14:52 22 Apr 2007)
:Potent potables is a classic category, so it is kept.  'Lies Within' and 'choices' are quite rare, but recurring.  Argueably, all of these could be used on the article, but we don't want to be a directory of categories.  'World capitals' and 'Shakespeare' are common categories as well, but we don't want to overcrowd the secton.  Also, be sure to add your comment to the bottom of a talk page, so it is easier to find, and to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).  Cheers!  Reywas92Talk 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: I noticed tonight that, in the Double Jeopardy! round, the categories had an X-Men-like theme. They were as follows: Wolverine, Storm, Magneto, Rouge, Colossus, and "X"-Men.
64.53.2.215 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think this is notable for inclusion, I would argue that it is not. It is very typical of the show to do theme rounds such as this. Andy Saunders 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: X-Men

message: Does anyone know the actual HD format of the show? I know it's in syndication, so I wanted to ask before adding "Picutre Format" to the infobox. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, it's shown by KNXV, which, being an ABC affiliate, broadcasts in 720p. Anyone have information to the contrary? Uagent 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD Broadcast 

message: this episode has yet to air —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiddy (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why there are spoiler tags. Andy Saunders 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So? Andy Saunders 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the "one in 25 million" assessment is ridiculous. It's hard to see how they arrived at it but I'm guessing it involved an assumption of stochastic independence of the three scores after FJ, which is obviously incorrect. How many episodes have there been in the Trebek era? 5000 or so? I guess that includes tournament games. But based on there being exactly one tie game in that sample, you can see that a better estimate of the probability of a tie game is 1/5000. There are some problems with that methodology as well (it isn't really a random sample), but I think it's correct within an order of magnitude. How many times in the Art Fleming era was there a 3-way tie? What about Rock&Roll Jeopardy, and the various international editions of Jeopardy (Swedish, Turkish, etc.)? --Mathew5000 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per posts to the official Jeopardy! Message Board, the academic apparently responsible for that figure was David K. Levine.  Ewok has posted to his game theory forum asking Prof. Levine to justify the figure. Robert K S 09:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it turned out, Dr. Levine only squared 5,000 to arrive at the "one in 25 million" figure, so as Mathew5000 (among many others) points out, it has extremely little meaningful value and should not be reported in this article as a fact just because some game theory authority was asked for a sound bite. Robert K S 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  friday march 16 2007 

message: Seeing as there's some opposition to the new Infobox that has just been added, let's hammer out whether or not we want it on the Talk Page here. Andy Saunders 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea; I think that it might be a good split (especially as the succession box would go in the 1964 article). What do others think? Andy Saunders 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with anything?  I really don't think that a TV guide from the 70s is really necessary, even if they were split.  Anyway, hasn't that already been done in Jeopardy! Broadcast history?  What went before and after the show just seems like indesriminate information.  Reywas92Talk 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled upon WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. I would contend that this succession box is similar enough to a TV guide for it not to be suitable for Wikipedia. Andy Saunders 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox discussion 

message: Personally, I think that the article should just have something similar to "The first and only three-way tie in the entire 23 year history of the show happened on March 16, 2007. All three contestants earned $16,000 and got to appear in the next episode.", with a reference to the J! Archive, as currently appears in the upper part of "Special Cases". I really don't think that the event is notable or encyclopedic enough to actually provide full details other than that. Discuss. Andy Saunders 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly right.  Wikipedia isn't a site for NEWS FLASH!es. Robert K S 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much detail is really required about the tie game? 

message: Well I got something on my talk page saying that I discuess a revert I made. I considered it vandalism and I don't want to get involved in a debate. Follows is a quote.
=== Jeopardy! infobox ===
Hey, I'd like to see the new Jeopardy! infobox that you reverted discussed on the talk page so that the editors can come to a consensus as to its inclusion. Thanks! Andy Saunders 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for letting us know! Andy Saunders 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't want to get involved 

message: Hey, I'd like to see the new Jeopardy! infobox that you reverted discussed on the talk page so that the editors can come to a consensus as to its inclusion. Thanks! Andy Saunders 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for letting us know! Andy Saunders 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeopardy! infobox 

message: I know next to nothing about editing Wikipedia,but I do know that on a show that aired yesterday, there was  the first three way tie in hisory! Could someone add this to the articls, perhaps under "special rules" or something to that effect?
SaVeD333 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had your back for a few days now. ;) Check out section 2.5 ("Special Cases") - the three-way tie is mentioned there. It aired last Friday for those who didn't have to suffer through March Madness preemptions. --Scani 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Record Set Recently 

message: It's completely not notable and irrelevant. Every prepared contestant will make wagers specifically calculated to achieve a certain outcome. It's called strategy. Contestants have wagered to "bet to tie" before; this is nothing new in the Jeopardy! canon. Andy Saunders 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  I wasn't aware that betting to tie was particularly common.  My apologies. Roscius 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the latest AP story posted 

message: I'll suggest this here because few people read Talk:Jeopardy.  Should Jeopardy remain a diambig to Jeopardy!, or shall we redirect it here and create Jeopardy (disambiguation)?  Most people typing Jeopardy into the search box are looking for this.  Reywas92Talk 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is reasonable to suggest that the most common use of Jeopardy is Jeopardy!.  can be used to direct users to the disambiguation page. Although someone could demonstrate Jeopardy can have another significant meaning, I believe this is the primary use. Because Jeopardy (disambiguation) has a history, it has to go through WP:RM. I can initiate that process. Tinlinkin 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is set up at Talk:Jeopardy. Tinlinkin 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jeopardy]] redirect 

message: I have just archived this page so it is not too long. Harrison- HB4026 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Since there is more than one show called Jeopardy, shouldn't there be a disambiguation page? Or at least make Jeopardy! link to this page, and Jeopardy link to a disambiguation? Talk User:Fissionfox 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just a bit late for that discussion, but there's nothing that says you can't reopen it. Robert K S 11:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The section on Fleming's era states he always wore a tuxedo, yet the accompanying image, captioned 1974, clearly shows a suit, NOT a tuxedo. can someone more familiar than I adjust this in the correct manner, either by fixing the caption or removing the tuxedo comment? ThuranX 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that the picture has been placed where it is not as relevant.  The picture is from the daily network version of the show, whereas the section in which the picture has been placed refers to the weekly syndicated version of the show.  (Yes, two versions of Jeopardy! were being produced concurrently.) Robert K S 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleming: Tuxedo VS Picture: 

message: :Image:Alextrebek86.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 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 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. Robert K S 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Alextrebek86.jpg 

message: :Image:Tv jeopardy category.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 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Tv jeopardy category.jpg 

message: According to the intro, the syndicated version premiered on September 9, 1974 and its finale was on September 7, 1975. The thing about that is, September 9 was a Monday in 1974 and September 7 was a Sunday in 1975. I would think they should be the same day of the week. Does anyone have a source for these? -Joltman 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have been the one to add the dates, and I think my only source may have been this.   If you find it's wrong, please do correct! Robert K S 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicated premiere/finale dates 

message: There is a note in editing that there is a special page specifically for pop culture relating to Jeopardy!, but there isn't.
So I added a reference on the main page about Jay Leno's Celebrity Jeopardy!. I think that it is significant enough to be included as along with SNL, it is the only ongoing parody. If we're going to argue about significance, I don't think Weird Al's song should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.244.24 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That notice is out of date; I've gone in and change it. The article "Jeopardy! in popular culture" was successfully nominated for deletion several months ago. I don't believe there is any consensus to bring it back, and considering the length of the article as it is, most editors are quite loath to let the Popular Culture section grow unchecked unless there are some very good claims for notability. If you wish to make an argument for its inclusion on that sort of significance, you're welcome to do so, but you should have good evidence to back it up (not just personal opinion). In any case, thanks for leaving your feedback here and contributing! --Scani 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Just wanted to chime in to say a little about what I've been doing with the article today and in my past edits.  Since this article is very long and detailed, I thought its flow would benefit from moving some of the more detailed particulars to the footnotes section.  Examples of specific events from the show and other notes not directly related to Jeopardy! are the types of items that I've been shifting into footnotes.  This allows the reader to get the big picture from the article, then refer to footnotes for supporting evidence/examples or more minute details.  I believe this is how this type of material would be (and is usually) handled in any scholarly article or book.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about my edits today 

message: Conceit is the proper term to use in the context of "The conceit of "questioning answers" is original to Jeopardy! and, along with its theme music, remains the most enduring and distinctive element of the show." Please do not change it to "concept". For more information about literary conceit, check out the wiki-link to conceit above. Andy Saunders 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget the "literary" sense, even.  Conceit in this context is somewhat synonymous with "novelty", a shade of meaning that the word "concept" does not convey, even if it would seem to work.  If we keep having a problem, we can, perhaps, just wikt-link the word in the article. conceit noun. An idea, particularly as a literary device; an extended metaphor. Robert K S 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikt- link will not be fool-proof, as even I won't recognize the literary novel sense in a first reading. The common usage of the word is "self-conceit" (e.g. Isn't he conceited in thinking this way?) I actually feel the first link by Andy is the better way to go. Tinlinkin 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the addition of the word "literary" as a qualifier into the article.  Come now.  The usage of the word "conceit" here has nothing to do with the literary.  This is Jeopardy!, not Longfellow.  "Literary conceit" has a specific meaning of metaphor or simile: comparisons being drawn between two things analogically.  As used here and, I would venture to say, in the majority of its uses in the English language, "conceit" simply means "something conceived."  "Concept" is a cognate and does not have quite the same meaning; in particular, it does not connote uniqueness, fancifulness, or novelty. Robert K S 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. But why not replace it with "novelty" or "novel idea"? (Maybe the connotation of specialness is lost? and I won't nag anymore after this.) Tinlinkin 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any response to this save to say that if there are users who don't know the meaning of the word "conceit" there are probably also going to be users who aren't familiar with the meaning of the word "novel".  I can envision a discussion identical to the one above, except with someone arguing that "novel" can't be the right word because it refers to a kind of fiction book.  If we perpetually translate down to the LCD on this Wikipedia, we end up with the Simple English Wikipedia. Robert K S 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, in order for Wikipedia to be usable in general, it must appeal (to a certain extent) to the general reader, not the expert. You're suggesting that in order to accomplish this we'd have to dumb down every article, which is a slippery slope of an argument. I'm no slouch when it comes to literary terms but I'm still confused by this particular usage, so let's keep it simple enough for most, rather than only the elite, to appreciate and understand . Twir (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Gimme a break folks. I had to re-read three times to figure out it was not a typo. Usage of "concept" of "literary conceit" in a simple article about jeopardy smacks of intellectual snobbishness. 162.95.80.214 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The usage of conceit is confusing to the average person, for whom the article is written, rather than your literary know-all. Isn't there a style guideline that pertains to this? Twir (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, so I've asked around among my friends and family, most of whom are relatively intelligent and college educated, and nobody understands this usage of conceit. I realize it's pretty ridiculous to continue arguing about a single sentence, but I think that considering it takes a MENSA member to understand what the heck this article is talking about I'll just **Be Bold** and make this sentence simpler. Leave a note on my talk page if you can come up with a good reason why I shouldn't. (Specifically, I'm looking for an argument that justifies an obscure or expert word usage in a non-technical article.) Twir (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree neither that the word is too obscure for an encyclopedia article nor that "concept" is a suitable replacement for it.  I've posted my thoughts to your talk page.  If people keep popping in to object to the word, then it won't survive in the long term.  Either reasonable people will come to concur with its suitability or the sentence will be rewritten to obviate its use, but the current revision doesn't convey the intended meaning of the sentence. Robert K S (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceit, not concept