Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series)

message: I'm noticing that the game descriptions are starting to get longer and longer ... incorporating more and more descriptions of particular instances of the games from various episodes.  Is this appropriate?  It seems to be getting less encyclopedia-like and
more fan-webpage-like.  (But I'm new around here ...)  Jim Huggins 03:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about it for awhile ... I think I'm going to try and prune down the descriptions.  Descriptions of personal favorite games certainly violates NPOV, and in the spirit of Be bold, I'm going to try it and see what happens ... Jim Huggins 15:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prune away! with my blessing. Some of this is really over the top "X is usually hilarious in this game..." and that sort of crap need to go. A sentence should do for just about any one game. -R. fiend 22:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did my pruning way back in March, and the informality has really crept back in.  I'm not sure what can save this article ... Jim Huggins 22:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that most of the informalities have occured in the Atmosphere section of the article.  I think we should trim up once again and if the contributions from non-registered individuals contributes to the problem then we get that section or the entire article locked to registered users only.  I think it might be best to eliminate the section all together and maybe put in a Trivia section, which seems to be the norm amongst most shows.  In any event, I do not think we should give up on it. - Thebdj 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Descriptions

message: I'd like to see the description "However, the show lacked the true stakes and competition of a game show." to something like "Whose Line is It Anyway parodied game shows competition by awarding points that 'don't mean anything' "
I was thinking about how to clean up the Whose Line article.  We have the common sketches and there are some single play sketches that are not listed.  I think what we should do is have a rough breakdown of the show listing the opening and how the US and UK versions are different.  Explain that several games were played with a rough average given for both the US and UK version and end with an explanation of the endings for the US and UK.  This would sort of be ane expansion of the format section and a lengthened explanation of the show.  Now instead of the common sketches on this page we will do one of the following:  1) We would have all the skethches in a similar format on another article with a bit more explanation of the games and some differences, if any, between US and UK versions of the game or 2) a list page with separate articles for each game (see The Price is Right).  I prefer the first if any.  This should make the page a bit more concise and also allow us to expand on certain aspects of the show without clogging down this article.  Any thoughts? -Thebdj 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketches 

message: I am still for this section being cleaned up.  We need to avoid this article from becoming too much like a fan site.  I believe that running gags from the US and the UK will be okay if minimized.  Clive being bald, Colin being bald, ribbing the host, Ryan's shoes, height or nose, etc.  I believe single episode ones are a bit less useful.  At this point we cross into a fan site realm and people can gather this sort of information either from linked sites or by watching the show.  Unlike my idea for games, I am basically going to hold this stand and if no one can provide me a good reason not to start hacking apart the atmosphere section, I will begin to trim it down and edit it to bring it more in-line with an encyclopedia entry. -Thebdj 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree the single episode list should be trimmed down a lot or removed altogether.  It doesn't really add anything to the article.  That list could go on endlessly, especially if people just continue adding their "favorite moments." Wavy G 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atmosphere 

message: Based on the peer review I have separated out the games and re-layed out the article a bit.  Please do not revert back to the old page and let us work from here.  The removal was necessary to return the article to some normalcy.  I have ideas for the new page of games and they can be seen at that article. -Thebdj 03:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review and changes 

message: Pretty crappy idea to shorten the article. Encyclopedia or not, people come here to be informed and as a Whose Line is it Anyway fan I've got to say the page of a few weeks ago with more information was a lot more practical and useful. Nebuchanezzar 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to be encyclopedic.  All the information still exists in some way, even if it is spread out a bit (there is actually more information now). This is not a fan site.  And it is important to remember this. If you want a place with way more information then a normal person can use then follow the external links to the whose line wiki or to Mark's Guide. I intend on there being an article for almost every game at some point which should include even more information on the differeneces between US and UK games. I am sorry you do not like the idea, but the consensus from the Peer review only made more people think that shortening the article was a good idea.  There was TOO much information for the casual person seeking information, and if they are truly interested they can continue to read more on the separate pages or follow external links. I have posted here several time about possible changes and no one ever replied to them. If people do not add input, then stuff like this does happen on wikipedia. -Thebdj 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, encyclopedia or not, the former article was a great piece of information to a fan. Seeing as it's the casual fans of the show who'll be looking up these sorts of articles, it's in their interest which you should be operating. Nebuchanezzar 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I have said and the peer review proved, the current article is most appropriate.  I do not believe that casual fans will make wikipedia their first stop.  I think the idea, as with a real encyclopedia, is to give people the basic information on the show in a concise and NPOV manner.  All the material you claim was "better" has been moved to other pages wiki-linked to the main article.  It is not that hard to find.  The article was loaded with cruft and constantly being editted with new material from the most recent airings on ABC Family with some joke someone thought was funny.  Sorry if you do not like the new format... -Thebdj 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Choice

message: So, is Whose Line going to continue to run in America, or will it be cancelled as soon as ABC have got the most out of every previous taping session? The text is unclear. Is this because nobody knows?
Dave
-Have found out when it was cancelled and inserted text to that effect.
Dave.
:Please sign your discussions with four tildes (~~~~), thanks. --Kylemcinnes 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American run

message: From the description it sounds just like I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Is it?
: I've never seen that show, but from wikipedia's description, it sounds mildly similar (helped by the fact that many performers have been on both shows). I think Whose Line (except for very early on) is more tongue-in-cheek about it being a competitive game show. The games in that show seem to be more like 'games' than most of the games in WLIIA, whereas there are games like Props or Questions only that are similar to those I read in this other show, but there are also games like Film and Theatre Styles or superheroes which aren't really competitive games - just way in which to get the cast to act/improvise. There is no "winner" condition for those games, they are just improvising scenes. There are a number of apparent similariries though TheHYPO 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This show

message: As the opening paragraph states It was originally a British radio program, but later moved to television, first as a series made for Britain's Channel 4, and subsequently as another version made for American television., it is hard for me to see how the American version can be considered so different? The show undeniably originated in Britain, and, without it, there would be no American version, surely? DavyJonesLocker 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're asking. The show was made for British TV. Then that series was ended, and a completely new series, with a new host, and new episodes was made for ABC. Nothing in that sentence says that the American version was substantively different from the British version. Simply that there was another version. TheHYPO 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should've been clearer. I removed the USA from Country of Origin field in the infobox as, like you've said above, the show originated in Britain, but it was replaced by a user (who hasn't posted here) a couple of times. I'm still of the opinion that something can't possibly have 2 origins, hence the singular of the field name. DavyJonesLocker 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me add, this page was perfectly fine with no real opposition to this until now.  So what has changed? -Thebdj 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's irrelevant and this is ridiculous. You say your reasons are known, but you haven't stated them. You've also just said yourself, a US show based on a UK show, dictionary definition: something from which anything arises or is derived, source, the first stage of existence. All of which means the US should not be there, please do not put it back. DavyJonesLocker 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we have had this talk in our user talk pages.  Now, if there has been no support here either way, so until otherwise do not remove the tag again.  If you really want this resolved put in an RFC, but do not revert this again.  -Thebdj 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit fed up with this now, as it never should have become a problem in the first place. With respect, those examples you use don't work; WP has articles for both (and maybe more) versions and so each one has a different origin. The facts are that the show was created in Britain, the British show went to America, origin is singular etc. etc. etc. everything I've said before. A five character edit should not have created so much unnecessary controversy, and I for one, am thoroughly bored. DavyJonesLocker 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the box is going to have 'origin channel' which noone disputes that some are originally BBC and some originally ABC... then I don't see why there's an argument that there is no US origin AND UK origin for the series. As I said. What is the origin of Spider-man? "That he was bit by a spider" or "Marvel Comics"? It depends what origin means. Feel free to check the TV box and see what the peolpe in charge of that think - I don't care that much. But it completely depends on what origin means. country where the show is produced, or country where the idea was first concieved. To me, there is no clear answer, and no big deal either way. TheHYPO 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: I'm quite new to wikipedia (sorry for not writing in a correct manner) but I have a suggestion : we should write a list of all participants by appearing order (it should be cleaner). For both versions (us&brit). Thank you... --Anaudin 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode list needed

message: Is it genuinely improvised? Some of the songs seem too polished to have been made up on the spot.--Darrelljon 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Vranch improvised the music on the British version, though. --Evildevil 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What you're forgetting about the improvisation process is that these people are professionals who have been improvising in these styles for years, as most of them were on the British series before migrating to the American series. The musicians are improvising the music in the style suggested, which is not extremely difficult given a training on the instrument and in music theory. People are always suspicious that the show is not improvised, and always have been, but I do not see any indication that it would be other than what it is claimed to be. Also, if you watch enough of the show you will see one of two things: the musically trained / talented actors doing the difficult musical styles (song styles) and numerous mistakes by the actors in nearly any song category at one time or another. Liontamarin 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Laura Hall and the rest of the musicians improvised the music for Greatest Hits. Colin and Ryan never were given song styles or genres, they would come up with them on the spot and the musicians and singers had to go along. 208.117.17.106 (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Firstly I should mention that it is quite silly to think that "mistakes" or "uncertainty" in the performance is proof that the show is improvised. If anybody were to create a show where they wanted it to seem like it was improvised they would be beyond stupid if they didn't write mistakes into the script. If the show wanted to add validity to the claim that it is improvised they could throw a ball into the crowd and use the answer of the person who catches it, instead of having Drew claim to be picking an answer randomly from the crowd. I have come across no conclusive or reasonable proof that the show is either real or fake. It seems that the article however has taken the view that the improvisation is real which suggests bias on the part of the authors. --203.206.108.189 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The show is presented as improvised; every article written about it says it's improvised; all of the cast and participants say it's improvised. Barring ANY evidence to the contrary, the article has no reason to say otherwise. If you have a reliable source saying the show is not improvised, it can be presented in the article; otherwise, that's not how wikipedia works. TheHYPO (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  "every article written about it" and "all of the cast and participants"; I'm going to assume that was just hyperbole. I do however have a problem that proof is not required before something is presented as a fact, only the need for others to say it is so. Just because somebody can get the vast majority to agree with them about something does not make it a fact (e.g. WMD, Flat Earth) and thus it should not be presented as so. When assumption is presented as fact, it only helps to mislead people. I think you had it dead on when you said "The show is presented as improvised", which I believe would be a far more correct way of describing it in an unbiased article. --124.169.131.188 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't know if this affects anything, but I have been an audience member in a WLIIA/US taping, and I can vouch for the songs and other material being improvised on the spot. However, there is a caveat: they do reshoots. Sometimes a song will need to be retaped because the actor flubbed a word or made an inappropriate reference or something like that, and the director would step in and say "Okay, Ryan, that was great, but instead of Hitler, could you make that one line be about Gargamel?" or something similar. Oftentimes this retake would occur hours later in the taping (which lasted all day), and the actors were obliged to remember what they had come up with earlier in the day and recite it again as though they'd just come up with it—and we in the audience were obliged to laugh at it again as though it were the first time we heard it. So a lot of the reactions will sound forced, as will the delivery sound rehearsed. Yet for the purpose of the article, I would say that it's true that all the material is in fact newly improvised. Brian Tiemann (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we write about what reliable sources report.  Writing that "it is presented as so", will lead to the bias that "it may not actually be so", which is POV.  ---Debollweevil (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Brian for the insight. The article makes absolutely no mention about this and is therefore misleading, implying that it is 100% improvised. I think that we should take this information very seriously and incorporate it into the article. However, we should also work hard into finding a source that we could cite to back up these claims. But acting like this information doesn't exist is dishonest. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvised?

message: There should be one; I'll start it off:
** On some games, crew members and equipment are used; cameras, booms, the piano, and the buzzer.
** Ryan breaks the neon lighting bordering Drew's desk.
** In the end of Scenes from a Hat, Drew accidentally hits the camera with the hat.
:Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read WP:TRIVIA. However, it would be better if you integrated such material into the text itself. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia shouldnt be on any wikipedia pages, in my opinion.--Evildevil 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't. Read WP:TRIVIA --Evildevil (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: Changed the text of this paragraph slightly.  John Sessions did not resume his role as the sole regular when the show moved to TV, as on radio he had shared it with Stephen Fry.  Rojomoke 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never watched the US version so I don't know. Whoever it is, they seem non-notable as they don't have an article so they could probably be removed from the list. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, think I found the culprit - 24.154.19.87 added the character yesterday afternoon. I'm guessing it is false information so I've removed it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Apart from 24.154.19.87 apparently taking the role of her agent, (or stalker or both) I can't find any trace of an actual Liv Mulneix. Needless to say, she wasn't on any Whose Line? UK or US. LicenseFee (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yet she was never on Whose Line?, so stop spamming this article with details about her. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just had to revert three edits in a row. Could you please stop spamming the article? Nurse! He's out of bed again. LicenseFee (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: That is not reliable proof. Please give details of an episode number or a screenshot of her on the show. Also, there is no mention of her surname on that page; that alone is too suspicious. No more vandalism please. Unwisely (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure you're right. It's removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: Was the show scripted or ad libbed or something in the middle of the spectrum? I seem to remember that the claim was that it was completely ad libbed without even a set up for the performers but they seem too good to be true. Regardless, this information is vital for this article if anyone knows the facts. Valley2city 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up three posts. -ZFGokuSSJ1 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripted or unscripted? 

message: How exactly is this related to mock the week?  Different people, channels, production companies and styles of programme.  They seem totally unrelated. 86.10.81.54 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both shows were created by Dan Patterson and Mark Leveson. And a few WLiiA alumni appeared on MTW. Rory Bremner, for instance, was a regular performer in its first two seasons. And MTW also has an improvisational element, though not as strong on one as WLiiA. --Evildevil (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mock the Week

message: Anyone against doing lists of episodes? I see that one has been started for the UK episodes, but this isn't linked to the main article. Any reason for this? LicenseFee (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an episode list. The existing one you've referenced needs renaming however as it has a capital E for episodes and it shouldn't. Also, are we sure the article needs to be separated into UK and US episodes? This article treats the show as one shouldn't the episode list do so also? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about one list, but split it into two sections? It'll be easier to find the cast list for the UK ones me thinks because there are less episodes and it's being repeated to hell on Dave. I'm not a great list creator, but if one gets going I'll help out. Just tell me where! LicenseFee (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode lists

message: "Indeed the title of the show itself is a comedic riposte to another radio show, entitled What's My Line."
Is it? I assumed it was a play on Whose Life is it Anyway?. Do we have a reference for it either way? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: In addition, the British version was more about improvisational theatre, which meant it would occasionally have games that were designed to show off its contestants' acting range rather than getting laughs
Only a few games were for laughs such as Moving People or Courtroom Scene. The US had fairly similar games, but the new ones were mostly for laughs like Action Replay, Irish Drinking Songs and Director. Although Director was in the UK version (and the Director was always Colin Mochrie in both versions), the UK version had the Director restricted to audience suggestions, thus more like an acting scene. In the US version, it was more for laughs as Colin was allowed to make up suggestions by himself.
This game also has other versions as well with certain instances of the performers having to imitate different people or to wear different hats while asking the questions, however these two versions of Questions Only were in the US version and were mostly just for laughs rather than acting.
--
Not striking me as entirely neutral, and, um, is getting laughs not an acting skill? What does everyone think? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For laughs" 

message: For a start it could do without the descriptions of some of the skits. They're not necessary to understand how the games work and it's nowhere near as amusing to read about them as it would be to watch them.--RadioElectric (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a fairly radical pruning of the content.  Too much of the article was original research and opinion by fans as they added their favourite bit of the show.  Events on the programme need to prove their notability by verifiable cites.  Recollection of bits that made one particular editor laugh is really not enough and just fancruft.  It also makes for a very messy, rambling article that kept repeating or contradicting itself as to what bit was best or most notable.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love this show but this article needs to go on a diet 

message: Did Lassie really appear in one/more of the episodes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunners (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In one episode, yes. Can't remember which one - all I can remember is it had Brad Sherwood guesting. LicenseFee (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Salute to American television" episode, although I can't remember the episode number. It was the same episode in which Sid Caesar also guest starred. --90.196.43.232 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a reference for anyone who doubts it. Gary King (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lassie 

message: I think the one jumbled list of "guests" for both the UK and US show combined is a dumb idea. Most readers will prefer to know who was on the UK show separate from who was on the US show. These lists should be separated (easily separated into two paragraphs). If one goes back about a year in edit history, the article used to have separate lists. This can be used for reference. TheHYPO (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there should be separate lists. Also the US version section has Kathy Kinney as one of the celebrities making guest appearances for individual games, but I think she was a contestant? Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guests 

message: Today I am completing a quite extensive split of content from the combined article to the new Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series). This includes pretty significant changes to both articles and should negate the arguments in favor of deleting the US article because it is/was too skimpy. It isn't anymore, despite Quiddity's take on "eventualism" vs. "mergism". We could use some more citations at the US article if anyone would like to help out. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe a page rename is necessary. Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't seem to give relevant guidance here, but for precedent, the chronologically original topic usually retains the undisambiguated title, eg Pride and Prejudice and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. If this page were renamed, we'd just have to decide (argue over) where to redirect the undisambiguated title. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We might be fine as-is since it is reasonably easy to jump from the UK (original) article to the US article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Split-ists and [[WP:RESCUE|Rescue Squad Members]] 

message: It sounds a lot like the saxophone solo in Genetic Engineering by X-ray Spex.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSCgVbDMs-E No-genius (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme Tune (UK at least) 

message: An image used in this article, File:WhoseLine01.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WhoseLine01.png)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:WhoseLine01.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Colin Mochrie has just announced that Whose Line Is It Anyway? will return.  I consider Mochrie a reliable source on these matters, but considering the little information known so far, I worry about putting it in, but it sure will be interesting to keep track of.  We don't even know if it will be British or American or some third situation. --Svippong 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out there are more details available, this blog references this interview with Ryan Stiles talking about the new show, and Aisha Tyler being the new host. --Svippong 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return 

message: Check the opening title sequence to UK season 2 - blackface characters, including a moment where two blackface characters are holding banana's. That's kind of fucked up, even if it's completely unintentional (though having both blackface, and the banana reference at once...pretty odd) Arfed (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackface???