New Immissions/Updates:
boundless - educate - edutalab - empatico - es-ebooks - es16 - fr16 - fsfiles - hesperian - solidaria - wikipediaforschools
- wikipediaforschoolses - wikipediaforschoolsfr - wikipediaforschoolspt - worldmap -

See also: Liber Liber - Libro Parlato - Liber Musica  - Manuzio -  Liber Liber ISO Files - Alphabetical Order - Multivolume ZIP Complete Archive - PDF Files - OGG Music Files -

PROJECT GUTENBERG HTML: Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV - Volume V - Volume VI - Volume VII - Volume VIII - Volume IX

Ascolta ""Volevo solo fare un audiolibro"" su Spreaker.
CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Jeopardy! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Jeopardy!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Two pilot versions of well-known 1984 incarnation

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)

[edit] Adding {{verylong}} into top of the article

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Conversion of contestant lists to tables

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)

Many thanks! Looks much better. (The colors might be tweaked further for readability.) Robert K S 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this article need its own spinoffs?

I wanted to add {{split-apart}} 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)

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)
It's official: the template is added. --Gh87 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contestant Intro

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)

[edit] Notability of Jeopardy! contestants

How do we go about setting a standard to determine which Jeopardy! contestants can have their own articles and which should not? I don't know where the cut-off for notability should be. I'm bringing this up because Jeopardy! contestants have come up for AfD before, and another contestant, Vik Vaz, is now up for AfD. Tinlinkin 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't conceive of a quantitative cut-off that doesn't rely on some arbitrary metric (number of games won, total dollars accumulated, etc.). Certainly new record-setters are good candidates. ToC winners are, too, but not every ToC winner qualifies. Ultimately the question must be whether the contestant qualifies as someone of general notability beyond the show, or of surpassing notability within the show. Rather than search for some sort of a cutoff, better to let the AfD process take its course. Robert K S 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Traditionally, the cutoff has been "have they broken a major record within the show, or have people in the general media taken to discussing and covering the run of the contestant?" I've put Nico Martinez up for AfD becuase I do not feel he meets the notability criteria of the show. Andy Saunders 16:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that the Vik Vaz AfD has been closed, I would agree that he is non-notable, and I would have ultimately voted to delete.
I should have expressed that we can't stop the creation of new articles about Jeopardy! contestants (by fans? vanity pushers?), but we can delete them per notable bio guidelines. These articles create a whack-a-mole effort that I'm not happy with, but have to live with. I agree that total winnings or tournament placement is not sufficient for a sustainable Jeopardy! contestant bio, and a cutoff, per se, should not be established. Record holders and well-publicized winners would be notable, but only in (per Jayron32's words in the Vik Vaz AfD) "NONTRIVIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, and RELIABLE sources." I don't believe that Ken Jennings is the only notable contestant, as implied by some in the AfD, but I hate to think Ken Jennings should be the only standard to compare notability with.
I guess another reason why Jeopardy! contestants may be (or tend to be) more notable than contestants from other game shows is because in this show, intellect and knowledge of a broad range of subjects is rewarded whereas in other game shows, winning is largely by chance. Bios of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top-prize winners also suffer from borderline WP:BIO notability, and as that series continues on, million-dollar winners will likely be less publicized (at least in the US media) than in the past. Sorry to introduce another game show into this topic, but I feel it's highly related. Tinlinkin 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex's departure as producer

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)

[edit] Quotation marks

None of the Quotation marks that you think belong actually go there. None. If you see the article on the subject linked to above, never is it given that giving examples of question words (What, who, etc.) should have marks. Only direct quotations should have quotation marks, so in the case of giving examples of questions from different categories, they do not belong because Jeopardy! has never actually used those questions, and are therefore not quoted from the source. For CROSSWORD CLUES M, an individual letter does not use the marks. It is to avoid confusion, you say? Without quotation marks, nothing is confusing me. Perhaps you actually wanted them to be in italics, as two apostrophes and quotation marks look very similar sometimes. On account of your userpage, this is a wiki, and it is perfectly okay to make simple spelling and punctuation corrections to it, as long as one isn't vandalizing or making major changes. Also the "high" that you used on my talk page is also wrong. That usage is now quite common and not considered to be extremely slangish anymore. Now please read the article and learn how to use quotation marks correctly. I am sorry if I have sounded rude to you. Reywas92Talk 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how eliminating quotation marks would not cause confusion. The quotations are meant to convey what a contestant says or what appears on screen. If it is a matter of adding a source or reference for what was said, that could be done, but is it that necessary to have references for the purpose of justifying the use of quotation marks? Regarding CROSSWORD CLUES "M", the category is stylized that way because it is an extension of the "'quotation mark' categories" and responses must start with the letter M. Surely you remember from watching Jeopardy! how the show uses quotation marks. Tinlinkin 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
About M, I had mentioned it in an edit summary, but forgot to here. The marks around it there can stay because that is how the show uses them. For examples of questions, they are only examples, and were never actually used in show and therefore shouldn't have quote marks. A reference would be impossible. Even if that is what a contestant or the screen may say, it is not a direct quotation of something and must go. Reywas92Talk 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This boils down to a disagreement over the proper usage of quotation marks. Reywas92's position, as I understand it, is that quotation marks are only properly used when they actually quote someone or something. That someone or something, Reywas92 believes, cannot be a hypothetical someone or something; he, she, or it must have been an actually speaking, actually writing something or something. This is neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. Reywas92 refers to quotation mark to lend support for his point, but the article does not actually bolster his perspective. It simply says that quotation marks are "used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, or a phrase." There's no reason for this to be an edit war; both perspectives should be satisfied to put the matter to a vote. Robert K S 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, what you are quoting is a very loose summary of q-marks used at the top of the page. Read the Usage section, not just the first sentence. You can't just put q-marks around any phrase you want, there are rules to it. Also you had again reverted my edits, furthering the war. I believe, as this is only a lowly talk page, not AfD or RfA, that we cannot put this to a vote with many people. We must come to a mutual agreement. If you think that they reduce confusion, then 1) that is incorrect usage, and 2) they just create more clutter in my opinion. I have already agreed that "M" can stay. As said above, (What, Who, etc.) part is only giving examples and needs none, perhaps they should have been for italics. I still haven't really heard your arguement on why they should stay. Reywas92Talk 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that you are declining to oppose me, I will guess it is because you don't have a good comeback. I am removing most of them. Reywas92Talk 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a compromise using "Clue" and "Response". Hopefully it is acceptable to Reywas, as well as my Archive colleague. Andy Saunders 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I didn't think of that before. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks redux

Per the discussion above and recent new edits to this and other Jeopardy!-related articles, it seems that it is Reywas's belief that the proper use of quotation marks is limited to quotations. This is simply an overly strict interpretation of the quotation mark use. As an experiment, I tried typing "quotation marks may be used to" into Google (quotation marks included, so that I would search only on that exact phrase), and received hits on a number of manuals of style. They included the following recommendations:

  • [1] "...quotation marks may be used to indicate an informal name..." (This is the case with "Spyder" in the Jeopardy! Teen Tournament article. "Sypder" is not part of the car's formal name, and the vehicle in question was not actually a Spyder, but it was advertised as such by Johnny Gilbert among others.)
  • [2] "Quotation marks may be used to introduce unfamiliar or technical terms when they are defined or used for the first time..."
  • [3] [4] "Quotation marks may be used to set off words used as words..." (This is formally known as use-mention distinction, and is the use in the case of the "Who", "What", etc. in this article that Reywas seems to oppose.)
  • [5] "quotation marks may be used to indicate a term used in an ironic sense, as slang, or as an invented expression..." (See, for example, the latest This Modern World cartoon, in which the author deridingly refers to the cable network as "Fox 'News'".
  • [6] "quotation marks may be used to signify a special term or word, to introduce unfamiliar concepts or to indicate a word or phrase that is used in other than its literal sense (e.g., slang or a word used ironically)" (repetitions of above recommendations)
  • [7] "Quotation marks may be used to enclose words used in a special sense."

Most of these references give examples. I kindly ask Reywas to read them and reconsider his insistence on deleting sensibly-employed quotation marks willy-nilly. Robert K S 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the "words used as words" part, but IMHO, they shouldn't really be used unless in the actual sentence. As a part of a sentence, use-mention would be used to prevent possible ambiguity, and they would stay. In parentheses, not in the sentence, we know that "What" and "Who" (see it here) are example words, and must be used as words, and there is no ambiguity. On Spyder, I believe it should say "...a 2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS Spyder (convertable).", as Spyder is a part of the car's name, as on the Eclipse article. Reywas92TalkSigs 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, on your userpage, "hi" (word as word) is not a direct quote, and I see no reason for it to have quotation marks. "Star sighting" is a fairly common phrase so it shouldn't have them either. When googled, all know not to have them.

I'm not sure what else I can say to convince you. I assume you read use-mention distinction, but I'll adapt one of the examples on that page.
  • "What" is a word that has four letters
  • What is a word that has four letters
These two sentences have different meanings. The former is declarative and cannot be ended with a question mark, whereas the latter is interrogative and must be ended with a question mark. Nobody's being quoted in either of these sentences. We're simply making use of quotation marks to indicate use-mention distinction.
Since, as indicated by your remark about the word "hi" on my user page, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the concept of use-mention distinction—whether its existence or its usefulness—nothing will convince you that quotation marks have their proper place in English writing in general and articles on Wikipedia in particular. Robert K S 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept use-mention. As used in "once waved "hi" to me", "hi" is definately not used as a word. One can say the word "hi", but you cannot wave a word, of course. We both find this lame, how about we settle it by using italics, like used in the use-mention article. Reywas92TalkSigs 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I'm going to correct it if you don't respond. Reywas92TalkSigs 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand your positition. You're willing to admit they're examples of use-mention but you just have a preference against using quotation marks for use-mention? Robert K S 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split tag

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)


[edit] Men are better at Jeopardy!

Of course you will always find that isolated case of a women beating two guys, but on average you always see the women getting wiped out. This tidbit should be put in the main article. Everyone knows it's true. --72.202.129.98 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This message seems to be flame baiting, but in actuality gender differences in Jeopardy! performance is a real, though little-explored, area of scholarship. See, for example, Domain-specific intellectual success on "Jeopardy", Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Feb, 1998 by Sheila Brownlow, Rebecca Whitener, Janet M. Rupert. This is not to say I believe such scholarship is necessarily relevant to the Jeopardy! Wikipedia article. Robert K S 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can study it first if it is up for debate. But everytime I turn on that show, and a female is on there, she is always getting wiped out, or one of the males have a runaway lead. Not to say female intelligence or mental capacity/IQ or mental potential is any less, it is simply an observation that perhaps needs looking into. --72.202.129.98 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Women have won Teen Tournaments, College Championships, Tournaments of Champions, and the International Championship. There have been numerous female 5-time champions. Robert K S 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, whoever uses IP address. who cares who's better and who's worse! We don't allow anymore POV edits in this article, but we can discuss our own views here in this talk page. However, if you want to talk which gender is more "intelligent" than the other in Jeopardy! and other game programs, let's do that anywhere other than Wikipedia. --Gh87 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you know now that I think about it, it may be perhaps that more men are on the show versus the number of women. Usually if there are 2 men and 1 women, the chances favor the males. But I tell you what, if someone has statistics (or know where they can be found) on every show with the number of male and female contestants, I'd be willing to do the legwork and crunch the numbers to verify or disprove. This way there won't be people complaining about POV.
Secondly, let me put some people in their place.
Robert K S: Ken Jennings. Owned.
Gh87: I suppose you did not read my second reply, or else you would have seen that I have commented that I do not believe females have a lower mental capacity compared to males. I see a trend in Jeopardy! that I would like to look further into. Maybe you should read next time. Owned.
--72.202.129.98 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Its trollishness aside, the "Ken Jennings" remark is cryptic to me. Ken defeated, by my count, 67 women and 81 men, and was defeated by a woman. Neither statistic shows that men have greater capacity for success on Jeopardy!, only that one particular man was good against both men and women, except against one particular woman in one particular game. Robert K S 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International versions

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Conceit, not concept

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] International Championship

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)

Good find. Needs some work to conform it with the other tournament articles. Robert K S 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I barely recall Alex Trebek mentioning an international competition is held every year in Sweden. I don't know if this is true or not. Tinlinkin 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Darryl" vs. "Daryl"

Some IP user changed the name from "Darryl" into "Daryl". [8] How can we point out which is correct? --Gh87 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the most a person can win in 1 show

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)

[edit] Debt

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)

Only on The Simpsons. Robert K S 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I saw that episode. Good one, no they don't. Quadzilla99 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

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)

I'm not sure that could be considered fair use, irrespective of clip length. Robert K S 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if you did a home made version on a keyboard or something? Quadzilla99 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if you sang it off-key. Robert K S 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Luckily for us you're wrong Robert:[9] I'll set about finding us a clip. Quadzilla99 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
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." [10] Robert K S 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Maybe I was a little confrontational myself if so, I apologize. Quadzilla99 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related article nominated for deletion

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)

[edit] X-Men categories

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)

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)

[edit] HD Broadcast

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)

[edit] friday march 16 2007

this episode has yet to air —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiddy (talkcontribs) 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

That's why there are spoiler tags. Andy Saunders 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

airs in 1.5 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Crimlawfed 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I just gone done watching the show, and then saw it on the MSN home page that the show featured its first 3-way tie. Here is the article Three 'Jeopardy' Contestants End Up Tied. I'm sorry, but I have to dispute the odds remark ("one in 25 million"). Scott, who was leading with 13,600, and the other 2 both had 8,000 a piece. Scott could have easily wagered 2,401 (as by convention, most in the lead do), but chose instead to try for the 3-way push. It was discretion, not odds. Sorry. Joelogic 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] New infobox discussion

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)

I think there's an argument for splitting the article into two parts; the network editions from 1964-1975 and 1978-1979 and the 1984- syndicated edition. The same was done for Wheel of Fortune. Calliaume 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] How much detail is really required about the tie game?

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)

That is exactly right. Wikipedia isn't a site for NEWS FLASH!es. Robert K S 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty notable as far as Jeopardy is concerned. I also think it might be inclusion-worthy that one of the contestants had to orchestrate it to make it happen, especially since he easily could have won. What do you think? Roscius 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - see below. Roscius 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't want to get involved

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.

[edit] 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)

So... thanks and bye! W1k13rh3nry 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting us know! Andy Saunders 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Record Set Recently

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)SaVeD333SaVeD333 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Regarding the latest AP story posted

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)

I see your point. I wasn't aware that betting to tie was particularly common. My apologies. Roscius 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy redirect

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)

I think it is reasonable to suggest that the most common use of Jeopardy is Jeopardy!. {{redirect}} 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)
Discussion is set up at Talk:Jeopardy. Tinlinkin 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu