Talk:Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removed external link 2 Suggestive phrases 3 External links 4 Reasons for deleting Sample Categories section 5 Let's not add more "example" categories and such 6 From the Creator 7 Turd Ferguson 8 More fun with examples 9 The Incorrect Date 10 Changes to the categories section--why? 11 Hopefully Settling the Turd Ferguson thing once and for all 12 Sean Connery 13 Reason for deleting the Japan-U.S. trivia item? 14 I don't like the addition of "Richard Nixon" and "I Have a Chardonnay" as examples 15 Jimmy Fallon 16 "Gets Final Jeopardy right" vs. "appears to get it right"

[edit] Removed external link

Removed External link to website for following reasons:

• Page does not render properly in popular browsers
• Adult banners —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.69.218 (talk • contribs) 04:18, February 10, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestive phrases

I don't think that the Suggestive Phrases and Episodes sections are really fulfilling the role they could/should be. The jokes highlighted in the Episodes section strike me as an amalgamation of a few users' favorite gags from the sketch. I'm not sure if there's any particular standard for memorability, but many of the gags that are included, such as "The Letter after B" and "That's Robin" are pretty standard fare for the sketch. Also, some of the bits that would pass the memorability test, such as the exchange over "urple," can't really be communicated succinctly enough for my tastes. My feeling is that while there is some merit in indicating that "swords" is from the first sketch and so forth, it makes more sense to delete the "memorable lines" section from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Croctotheface (talk • contribs) 11:30, May 2, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Can anyone tell if the downloads in the external link are legal downloads? Just from glancing at the page, I sincerely doubt it, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. Gershwinrb 05:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too just now. I'm reasonably certain the skits are copyrighted materials, and also reasonably certain that the site(s) being linked here don't have the rights to the skits to offer them for download. So unless someone can show me otherwise that these sites do indeed have obtained the rights to distribute, I'll remove the link.

(deleted text follows sans section header)

• Complete Collection of Celebrity Jeopardy Videos, WMV Format

(end deleted text) Errick 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And I put the comment under the wrong section. Whoops. Errick 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the travisty.net link that someone put back. It's definitely copyright violation. Croctotheface 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deleting Sample Categories section

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)

[edit] Let's not add more "example" categories and such

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)

[edit] From the Creator

I was only trying to get someone to notice that vital part of the skits, and someone did name them all, I only did what I could remember, which was, as you supposed, more recent ones. I am glad, however, that someone did some research onto the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meddling (talk • contribs) 22:17, June 19, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turd Ferguson

I don't think that the "Turd Ferguson" joke is notable. It isn't even as if he's referred to by that name throughout the round. They use the joke during player introductions and again after the first question, where Reynolds does the "that's not my name" joke. After that, Trebek uses "Mr. Reynolds," and nobody insists on anything else. "Reynolds" is used more times and with more force than Ferguson is during the sketch. Just because some of the filenames for videos of the sketch use "Turd Ferguson" doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. Still, I want to hear other opinions before some sort of edit war starts. Croctotheface 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And Turd Ferguson is back in the article. I'm going to keep removing lines about Ferguson until and unless the person who adds it writes about their rationale here. However, to be honest, I don't really see any kind of reasonable rationale for putting a fake name there. The Episodes section has, according to the header, the following information: "original airdate" and "celebrity contestants." I know of no celebrity named Turd Ferguson. It's true that some people may know this sketch as "the Turd Ferguson one," but that is no reason to give that name such prominence in the article. It's the same reason why the line about the 12/7/96 episode does not mention "Swords," despite it being a memorable joke from the episode. "Turd Ferguson" was the basis of two jokes and nothing else. Croctotheface 09:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alex Trebek: "Apparently Burt Reynolds has changed his name to Turd Ferguson."

Burt Reynolds: "Yeah, Turd Ferguson, it's a funny name." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.67.230.179 (talk • contribs) 02:13, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More fun with examples

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)

[edit] The Incorrect Date

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)

[edit] Changes to the categories section--why?

Why is a disorganized list of categories with parenthetical notes a superior way to arrange the section? Honestly, I don't see this as an improvement. Saying that "Richard Nixon" is misrepresented as "---Hard ---On" is kind of a labored way to put it. Huge lists with parenthetical comments generally exist on Wikipedia when someone failed to come up with a better solution. This edit was a step backward, not to mention the poor writing and typos that it injected into the article. Fow now, I'm going to revert it. If there is a consensus out there that for some reason it's a better way to go, it can always go back the way it was. Most importantly, the huge list of categories sorely needs to be organized, either chronologically or alphabetically. Croctotheface 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There was also no reason to remove the cleanup tag, especially since the changes made the section sloppier. Cleanup does need to take place, as the list is not organized at all. Croctotheface

[edit] Hopefully Settling the Turd Ferguson thing once and for all

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)

I'm not an official member yet, and this is my first time doing this (talking on the discussion page,) so I apologize if it came out as incorrect. Anyway, though, look at the pages for Simpsons episodes. There are memorable quotes there, and for other TV shows/episodes, and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem. Also, how do you know that what you said would happen? It might not. On the other note, there are already tons of Celebrity Jeopardy fanpages, and I feel it would be kind of redundant if I created another one. Seriously, I want to hear other people's opinions about the Turd Ferguson thing, too, so until we hear what others think about it, then we can make an ultimate decision. Seriously, I don't see why you are so vehemently against putting it in there. Who cares if it's mentioned only a few times? Hopefully, others don't care, and no offense, but you're making it seem like I'm commiting vandalism, when really, there are much worse things people have done on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.50.13 (talk • contribs) 22:46, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. I understand what you're saying now, and I apologize for not knowing about some of the things you said. I won't comment anymore on this unless someone else says something that I feel is relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.50.13 (talk • contribs) 00:35, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Sean Connery

I dunno, but it might be a good idea to create a separate heading for Sean Connery's antics, since he arguably became the central element of the sketches. I also want future generations to know that the roman numeral for five can be incorporated into "Suck it Trebek."ProfessorFokker 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be OK with a section like this. However, it's very important that you either limit it to maybe three or so quotes or use some other sort of guiding principle that limits what can be included in the section. There are two issues to keep in mind with a section like this:

• The purpose of this article is not to retell the jokes, but to explain and contextualize them in an encyclopedic fashion. In other words, the article has links to transcripts of the skit, so it need not fulfill that kind of role.
• If there is no exclusionary criteria for what can go in the kind of section you're proposing, then ANY joke from the sketch becomes fair game to include, which would turn the article into a complete mess. Croctotheface 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for deleting the Japan-U.S. trivia item?

It wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, unless I'm missing something. Croctotheface 04:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like the addition of "Richard Nixon" and "I Have a Chardonnay" as examples

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)

[edit] Jimmy Fallon

What characters did he play? -Mike Payne 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gets Final Jeopardy right" vs. "appears to get it right"

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)

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)

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)

Granted... I changed it back. -Mike Payne 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)