Talk:Pardon the Interruption

message: Why is it considered such a cop-out when "pushing" in Over/Under.  I say it's more gutsy!!!  Rather than saying someone will hit more (over) or less (under) than 50 home runs, Wilbon may say "push!" which means he thinks said player will hit exactly 50 home runs.
:If anything, it's the fault of the producers (or whoever makes up the numbers) for using whole numbers. If they're so upset about the push, why even make it an option? Why not set the over/under at 49.5 home runs? - Nubby 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push in Over/Under 

message: Wouldn't it be more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry to use the last names of the hosts, instead of referring to them by their first name?
: Yes, that's how WP articles are supposed to be written. see here.  Have at it, or I'll do it eventually.  --W.marsh 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. - Nubby 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: How is Wilbon having never listened to Howard Stern important or interesting at all? George Washington, Michelangelo, Jesus of Nazareth: none of these men heard Howard Stern's celestial radio broadcasts. And now they would have to pay for that privilege. This should really be taken out. It smacks of those losers that call other shows and drop his name.Swatson1978 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Howard Stern?

message: When did PTI debut?  Some sources say Sep. 22 , some say Oct 22 .  Since the 9/22 date is given on the ESPN website, I think that's more likely. --W.marsh 05:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, upon further investigation, 9/22/01 was a Saturday, 10/22/01 was a Monday.  I the october makes much more sense, given that, and the fact that mentions of 9/22 date all seem to be based on the above ESPN article, which must just be wrong.  I'm changing the date in this article back to 10/22.  --W.marsh 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debut 

message: Why does PTI always seem to juggle their sponsorship between "Red Stripe Beer" and "Guinness Draught"?  After many months of being presented by Guinness it is now being presented by Red Stripe, who sponsored it for part of last year. Redsoxnation62 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presented by... 

message: Oops. I was going to move the Mr. 3000 reference elsewhere, thinking that there was an "appearances by PTI", but the Wilbon and Kornheiser appearances are as themsleves, not as PTI. I wonder-- where else has PTI appeared, aside from Mr. 3000? JAF1970 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PTI appearances

message: Oh, and fixed the link for the trampoline bear video -- and added an image. Priceless. :p JAF1970 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trampoline bear

message: There's already a reference to the film. Deleted the extraneous entry. JAF1970 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. 3000 

message: While no one but he will know why he has the sign cover his face at the end of each episode, the reason he whisper's PTI is to coincide with the end frames of every episode which flash the PTI logo and a whisper from a voice saying "PTI". Tony is likely imitating this. --Chicobo329 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's PTI Sign

message: Since we're apparently updating the page every day with the episode count, why not keep track of guest hosts to? it would at least be useful to know how many times they've hosted and when the last appearance was. I'm unaware of this information being available anywhere else. --W.marsh 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guests sugggestion 

message: In addition to that segment not being seen in Canada, this other reason for "Goodnight Canada" from the board at IMDb:
Wilbon said that "they" (Canadians) don't deserve a star of Vince Carter's calibur in a non-competitive place such as Toronto (when talking about Carter being traded to New Jersey.
The show recieved hate mail the next day and ever since Tony has stuck up for "his boys" in Canada.
Jimpoz 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodnight Canada 

message: Someone took off the list of all his joke middle names. I think we should keep it in as a running list.
Gabefarkas 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Lincoln187 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved. I've already created a seperate page for the list. JAF1970 17:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reali middle names during Over/Under

message: Okay, I moved the entire running gag section and gave it its own page. I'm sure you'll agree it relieves the page of a lot of bulk, and preserves the running gag work as well. Everyone wins. ;) JAF1970 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa. Just realized the Running Gags page is almost as long as the PTI page itself. Yeah, it was getting unwieldly. Check it out here Running gags on Pardon the Interruption. Let me know what you think. JAF1970 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I'm glad someone else did it since I didn't want to make such a major move myself. Do you want to possibly move the middle names back into the gags page or leave them as they are before they get too unwieldy themselves? Bmitchelf 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony Reali's Nicknames is fine as its own separate page. JAF1970 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit - Running Gags given their own page

message: I don't think they've played it in over a year.  Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the last time they played food chain? 

message: Unfortunately this article failed to meet the good article criteria. The article was quick failed, without a full review, because it contains cleanup tags - in this case, the  tag. When this has been corrected, feel free to re-nominate the article. Gasheadsteve 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the claim "and the format change is an attempt to increase SportsCenter's audience by tying it with a more popular program." This has long been uncited, and just might not be verifiable. It's probably true, but no one seems to have said that in print. --W.marsh 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added that reference that states PTI has higher ratings than SportsCenter overall, but it cannot be assumed that it is specifically higher than the 6:00 SportsCenter (although it probably is), so I removed the part of the sentence that says it is higher than that specific airing. So I'm going to renominate the article now; I'm surprised it just wasn't put "on hold" to begin with. bmitchelf•T•F 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed good article nomination

message: This article is quick failed for good article status because it has an NPOV tag.  Additionally, I feel it needs more inline citations where disputable facts are presented before it would be passed as a GA. There are a few references listed but they are poorly connectd to statements in the article. Timpcrk87 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second failed good article nomination

message: As far as I know, WXTR is a special simulcast separate from ESPN Radio that carries the whole show. Considering that WXTR is based in DC (as are both Kornheiser and Wilbon) I believe it is worth mentioning by name. That, and I do not believe there are any other stations that have such a full simulcast. Yet someone here keeps removing WXTR and replacing it with the phrase "with few exceptions" as if there are others out there, and as far as I know, there are none. JMyrleFuller (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put it somewhere else, like other versions. There's no reason to be so specific in the introduction. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I moved most of the broadcast details into its own section. (You're right-- that much detail is not necessary in the introduction and I think that as it was, there was TMI for an intro.) JMyrleFuller (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning WXTR by name 

message: How do you guys feel about keeping this for future viewing?
Why do you guys think this is not a notable anecdote. It happened, it's not made up, it's a good stepping stone to talk about censorship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbvr6 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it's important? It was a typo - that's it. Why would it be important? The earliest edits implied that there was a racial element to this, I assume that this was in reference to "nig" being the first three letters of the word "nigger." So what? Making that connection is not only a huge stretch, it's original research. Has the show acknowledged the mistake? Has the New York Times written a damning exposé on it? I suspect that neither of these have happened, because it was only a typo. Cheers, faithless (speak) 18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, faithless. I agree with everything you said. Also, since I didn't watch that show, only podcast-listened to it, did they fix it by the time the big finsh actually came on during SportsCenter? I don't see any screengrabs of it still being misspelled then. -- bmitchelf•T•F 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it did play through, it came on after the last commercial break, and stays on throughout, it's DVR’d. I don’t see why it's not something that should be removed. It's over the web, and people use WIKI as a source of up to date info. People will probably want to verify through wiki that it's legit. I perhaps understanding it to an "anecdotes" or "trivia" part of the page, but removing it all together, doesn't seemed justified because certain people don’t find it important. Whether it is or isn’t, it's still a fact.Sbvr6 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it has to actually be noticed and noted by somebody important or have some reaction to it, otherwise, it's just a spelling error. I don't see what's so important about that. -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: People are actually getting offended by this? Mshake3 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just because it happened doesn't mean it's important. Sbvr6, to reply to several things you said above: (1) trivia sections are discouraged, and should not be included in articles, (2) Wikipedia is not a newspaper - if people come here looking for the latest news, they're in the wrong place, (3) Leeroy Jenkins is notable because he has received attention from the media, and is widely-known enough to have been a question on Jeopardy! and to have been spoofed in a Toyota ad, and (4) as for who is important, please have a look at WP:RS, specifically "...third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Has it been mentioned by any such sources? Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, BBC? No one is saying it didn't happen, but it was a typo which has led to absolutely no controversy. It's unimportant. faithless (speak) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: By "all over the internet," do you mean this one site? That's all that comes up when I search for it on Yahoo, besides this page, of course. -- bmitchelf•T•F 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ESPN is not a 3rd party source, they are the 1st party. And wikipedia policy is put in place for these reasons. I'd say that if it happens again, then maybe it can bbe added. But one time it was just a typo. And if was the letter V I bet that this would not be noticed. Sbvr6 has been trying to imply a racial element to this where it really doesn't exist. MDfoo (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is starting to get ridiculous - no, not starting, it's been ridiculous for a while. It is on you to convince people that this should be included and you even noted in your most recent edit summary that there is "no reason why it should be included." It is a stupid piece of irrelevant trivia and doesn't even warrant a mention, let alone an entire subsection. faithless (speak) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not an admin. I just think this is such a trivial piece of information that nobody cares about because it was not mentioned anywhere except for that one site I linked to earlier and on this page, and I can't believe we're still wasting our time on this. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reliable source noting it as a controversy? Dlong (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people on Wikipedia are outraged, but otherwise, nope. Mshake3 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've made my point. Dlong (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you had actually bothered to read the Wikipedia policies, you would know what constitutes a reliable source (WP:RS). Then again, I suppose if you had actually bothered to read the Wikipedia policies, you wouldn't be arguing to add this clearly non-notable information, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. I am disappointed, however. Basically, unless you can find some sort of newspaper or reliable website (NOT blogs) which details the enormous outrage all across the world over this typo, it does not belong. And since there is no outrage, and since a search for "nig finish" on google only gives 325 results, with the results coming from such wonderful sites as "ballsiest", ebaumsworld, and withleather.com, you aren't going to have much luck. My suggestion to you is that you find some way in which to provide wikipedia with real contributions or, if you aren't interested in helping the project, to just leave. In either case, you should drop the subject. This is a non-notable event caused by a typo that has not had any ramifications. No one is outraged and no reliable source. You are just wasting everyone's time. Dlong (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dlong... I don't mean to belittle the existing guidelines, but if you want to go by the book you should make sure to mention wikipedia's overarching recommendation to  "ignore all the rules".  Guidelines are flexible and subjective; if people want to add this to the page it should be given proper consideration, not thrown out based on one's understanding of "the rules".  At the very least I think you'll admit we have a mixed bag of opinions on this and that it's not an open and close case.  Gsg123 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting how all the people who support inclusion are either IPs, new accounts, or accounts that have not been used in a long time. If I were less lazy, I'd file a checkuser request. Dlong (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nig Finish

message: I felt this warranted inclusion, besides Chicago being the epicenter of Wilbon's America, because they have a different edit of the show than the network version (5GM is included, Big Finish isn't), including a custom sign-off from Wilbon. Lambertman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMVP airing 

message: Who's the best at calling the NBA?I say Hubie Brown and Mike Triaco!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.7.142 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBA 

message: Who's the best at calling the NBA?I say Hubie Brown and Mike Tirico!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.7.142 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBA 

message: I am not the most adept editor; would someone be interested in adding information about the new "shout outs" section that has been appearing where "TV time" used to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.90.106 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shout-outs" 

message: Football Officials and the Game
Football officials need to be recognized for their part in college and pro games.  How many times have we seen a close game decided by an official’s blown or questionable call.  They are not supposed to be part of the game, but we can’t kid ourselves any longer, turn a blind eye, or stick our head in the sand about their influence on a game.  Blown or questionable calls can carry the same weight as a turnover, a fumble or an interception.  How many times have we seen an interception, kickoff or punt return for a touchdown negated by a questionable or blown call. When there are so many officials on the field whose only purpose is to scrutinize each play, realistically there could be a penalty on almost every play.
After a great play, the first thing I do is look for a flag or wait to hear the announcer say this is all coming back. Officiating has become more like special teams – they can take 6 points off the scoreboard faster and with less effort than the player took to put the points on the board.  They have become a big part of the game.  That said, as with the players, the pregame analysis should include this other aspect of the game – the officials – with information on such things as how long they have been officiating, prior experience as to where they have officiated, and how their calls have affected the outcome of a game, because it has gotten to the point that they have almost as much effect on the outcome of the game as who is actually on the team.
Luigi  Taborelli  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Borelli (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Officials 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Michael Wilbon 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Does anyone know if this recent format of three segments is a permanent change?Racingstripes (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be permanent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8410 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Segments change

message: Just fyi. You're losing a long viewer. Enjoy the analysis and repartee between Tony and Mike, but Mike's ever increasing political discourse and Trump bashing has caused me to tune out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.133.227.16 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bailing Out on PTI