Talk:Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live)/Archive 1

Rhymes with Urple

On Tuesday, June 12th 2007, an episode of Jeopardy aired. The Final Jeopardy category was "Colors". The Question was "Purple". The Answer was (and I'm paraphrasing, perhaps somebody recorded it?) "Politically disputed states are often referred to as this secondary color". Does anyone think this was a reference to the "rhymes with urple" category from celebrity Jeopardy sketches? They've done it before... Mujarimojo 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Urple doesn't have a rhyme, but orange rhymes with doorhinge. Scientifically, the square root of a banana is 2x*+5=25x.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Turd Fergusson joke is one of the best remembered gags in the whole series: of course it is notable. You state "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." I ask you why? I can think of a reason: it helps readers identify which episode that gag appeared in. I can think of another too: its funny and this is an article about a comedy sketch.

I will continue to post 'Turd Fergusson' on this board until such time as whomever keeps deleting it gives up. Hopefully they will give up because they will devlop a sense of humor and hence not be so serious. But if this person by appreciation of futility, I'll accept that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.144.124 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2007

First off, this is my first comment on here. I apologize if I haven't followed the accepted procedures.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on Turd Ferguson.

Turd Ferguson, to me, is the penultimate moment of the SNL Jeopardy parody. The request by Burt Reynolds to be addressed as “Turd Ferguson” takes the ridiculous factor of the show to a whole new level. It is Burt Reynolds’ final attempt to out-crazy Connery and in my opinion he succeeds.

It was so memorable to me that I frequently use “Turd Ferguson” a pseudonym. I’ve had e mail accounts under the name in the past, I've signed up for contests using the name, even right now it’s the name of my shared iTunes music on the network at work.

The first character that comes to mind when I think of the Jeopardy sketch is always Turd Ferguson. Considering that there is at least one other person who feels this way, whoever it is that keeps reversing your changes, I say that the reference to "Turd Ferguson" is a valid part of this entry.

Craig3r 05:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You did fine in your reply - it's easier to keep it as one paragraph and use : to indent it, so you know what comment yours is a reply to. Your comments make sense. The article is supposed to be written in a neutral point of view (WP:POV), which requires us to counter our natural bias as editors. (We're also supposed to be able to cite a (reliable [i.e. fact checked]) source for everything in the article, which is hard to to with subjective judgments like Reynolds "out-crazy"ing Connery.) There's an interesting essay at WP:TIGERS, that has a nice take on bias. --GargoyleMT 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed when I corrected the episodes section that Corc reverted my chnages and wrote as a note "revert--editor has pledged to be disruptive. this page is against the consensus that had been established." Is he a consensus of one? Looking at this disucssion page it is clear that he is running against the consensus of the users. Thus, I consider his revisions on this issue to be disruptive and contrary to the popular will: in other words vandalism. 141.166.154.63 13:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jimmy Fallon

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

"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)

Original research

Some of this is original resarch, such as this line: Connery eventually demonstrated that he is aware of the nature of the show and capable of answering the questions, but he simply enjoys making rude jokes and frustrating Trebek more than attempting to win the game. Other things are direct interpretations beyond just the facts, like Later on, Trebek became aware of this strategy. There's probably more, but I'd like someone to thoroughly reraed it for OR. And I'd also like secondary sources that have commented on this skit as well, but I'm not holding my breath. hbdragon88 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

About the only secondary source that has quoted on this was Alex Trebek himself, who during a televised interview revealed that Sean Connery was never a contestant on Jeopardy, & made a public invitation to Connery to appear someday on the game show. (Sorry, I don't remember any identifying details about the interview, just that it happened years ago.) If Connery ever appears on jeopardy, it doubtlessly would be one of the most-watched episodes of the show. -- llywrch 23:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

More Turd Ferguson

The Turd Fergusson joke is one of the best remembered gags in the whole series: of course it is notable. You state "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." I ask you why? I can think of a reason: it helps readers identify which episode that gag appeared in. I can think of another too: its funny and this is an article about a comedy sketch.

I will continue to post 'Turd Fergusson' on this board until such time as whomever keeps deleting it gives up. Hopefully they will give up because they will devlop a sense of humor and hence not be so serious. But if this person by appreciation of futility, I'll accept that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.144.124 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2007

Most of the jokes are funny. It's the job of a comedy sketch to be funny. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to be funny. To put that joke in such a prominent place puts it ahead of all the other jokes in the sketch when that's just not warranted. By the way, considering your pledge to edit war, I urge you to reconsider. If you like, you can ask for a third opinion or make a request for comment. However, simply trying to force your change through repeated reversions is not the answer. Croctotheface 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that we shouldn't identify ANY of the sketches by the funny jokes. We don't mention "Swords" for the first iteration, for instance. Why? It's not our job to retell the jokes. Croctotheface 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section is at the end of the article - how does it "puts it ahead of all the other jokes in the sketch." how is it not warranted when the gag here is that the character of has renamed himself?"

The section lists the characters and in that episode the character renamed himself. Hence, your argument "We don't mention "Swords" for the first iteration, for instance" is irrelevant because Sean Connery didn't rename himself 'Swords.'141.166.224.83 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should we privilege jokes about "renaming" above other jokes? He didn't really change his identity in any way. There were as far as I can remember, six FOUR lines in the sketch that had to do with the "Ferguson" joke. By contrast, I can count twelve lines about the "swords" joke. Croctotheface 06:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The section we are discussing lists the names of the characters being portrayed. In one of the episodes, the Burt Reynolds character renames himself 'Turd Fergusson.' This is in fact the name used for this character through most of that episode. As this section lists the characters' names, it should therefore list Turd Fergusson as this is the name used for the character in that episode. 141.166.224.83 06:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the characters renames themselves 'Swords.' Thus, the number of times 'Swords' is said versus the number of times 'Turd Fergusson' is said is irrelevant. 141.166.224.83 06:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not really answering my concerns. You haven't explained why "renaming" jokes are more important than other jokes. You seem to believe they are inherently more important. Besides, I'm not sure I agree on the terms you're using: you say that Reynolds "renames himself", but he really doesn't. As I said, they spend four lines on the joke, then they go back to calling him Reynolds. Here's a transcript. The character is clearly still Burt Reynolds. By contrast, the "swords" joke is far more important to that first episode of the sketch. They spend twelve lines on it. Here's another transcript. I'm not talking about "mentions" of Ferguson vs. "mentions" of swords, I'm talking about how many lines refer to the two jokes. Why should we call more attention to this one joke when it is clearly less important within the context of the sketch? Croctotheface 06:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This section lists the name of the characters and in that episode the character changed his name. Hence, his real name should be listed with the assumed gag name in parenthesis. The number of times they say the name 'Turd Ferguson' is as irrelevant as the number of times they say 'French Stuart.' 141.166.224.83 06:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"you say that Reynolds "renames himself", but he really doesn't." Actually he does: you note the podium and the time he refuses to answer a question until Trebek uses his new name. True, the skit doesn't show him go before a judge to change his name yet he assumes the 'Turd Ferguson' nonetheless. Evenm if you prefer to call it an alias, it is still a name used by the character in an episode. Hence, it should be listed with the names of the other characters. 141.166.224.83 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"You're not really answering my concerns. You haven't explained why "renaming" jokes are more important than other jokes." I have answered your (baseless) concerns, multiple times now. The section we are discussing lists the character's names. In one of the episodes, the character Burt Reynolds changes his name to &/or assumes the alias of 'Turd Ferguson. As both names are used in the episode both names should be used in the entry about the episode. 141.166.224.83 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that "Turd Ferguson" is a different character? It's not. It's just a joke that Burt Reynolds does. They don't even focus on the joke in a serious way. Croctotheface 07:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I might ask if you are serious. The plain language of my argument states that 'Turd Fergusson' is an alias assumed by Burt Reynolds. Nowhere do I state that Turd Fergusson is a seperate person. 141.166.224.83 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to clairfy for you, I'll make my line of reasoning into a list. I've also capitalized 'name' for your benefit as names are the issue we are discussing.

1. There is a section called 'episodes'

2. This section lists the NAMES of the characters appearing as guests in each episodes.

3. In one episode, the charatcer Burt Reynolds takes on the assumed NAME of 'Turd Fergusson.'

4. Thus, as the section lists the NAME of each character, the assumed NAME should also be listed; in parenthesis after the real-life NAME. 141.166.224.83 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The section lists the characters. You seem to recognize that the character is Burt Reynolds. The character is not "Turd Ferguson". It does not help readers who wants to identify the sketch by its characters to mention "Ferguson" becasue "Ferguson" is not a character on the sketch. It may help a reader who wants to identify the sketch by its jokes, but that's not the purpose of that section. If we list Ferguson, we should list every joke that could help identify every sketch. Croctotheface 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In this episode the character goes by both the name 'Burt Reynolds' and 'Turd Fergusson.' Hence the assumed name should be listed next to the real name in parenthesis. Listing 'Fergusson' does in fact help readers becuase this better identifies the episode and provides more acucrate character information. 141.166.154.63 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to be the consensus, on this board you are the only person arguing against adding Turd Fergusson. As such the cosnensus is against you. Thus, many people appear to find the Turd Fergusson note helpful. 141.166.154.63 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"If we list Ferguson, we should list every joke that could help identify every sketch." This is illogical, Croc, since I am only porpoisng that we list a character's assumed name. We are not listing every gag mearly every assumed name. And as it would happen, there is only one assumed name. Hence, as I stated earlier, this argument is illogical. Why would listing Turd Fergusson as a character name force you to loist 'Swords' for example? They are entirely differne ttypes of gags nd are not in any way related to one another. 141.166.154.63 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that returns us, then, to my question about why jokes where a character asks to be identified by a different name should be given special status above other jokes that are more important to the sketch. If you now accept that "Ferguson" is just a joke and not a new character or anything like that, I don't see how you can support listing the name as if it is acutally the name of a character. Croctotheface 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. I addressed this alreayd. You will note the section we are discussing is called EPISODES and that it lists the names of the characters being portrayed. Turd Fergusson is the (assumed) name of a acharatcer being portrayed. Hence it should be added to the list. 141.166.154.63 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Croc: "I don't see how you can support listing the name as if it is acutally the name of a character." I'm actually listing it in parenthesis after the phrase 'aka.' This makes it clear that the name Turd Fergusson is an assumed name. I am listing it after the name Burt Reynolds and before the next comma. This makes it clear that it is Burt Reynold's assumed name. Thus, the reader has more accurate infromation regarding the names of the charatcers portrayed in the episode. My question is thus, why do you want the reader to have less accurate information about the charatcers portrayed in the episode? 141.166.154.63 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indents) First of all, please stop editing your comments after you post them. I composed a reply to your first set of remarks, and now you've added another. Here is my reply to your first verison, which seemed to center on the concept of aliases: "Turd Ferguson" is not actually an alias. Reynolds doesn't assume a different identity. There are no instances where he is called "Ferguson" and not called Reynolds at the same time. Even within the fiction, the name is solely intended to be a joke: Reynolds just says "it's a funny name" when the topic comes up. If we seek to identify the sketch by its characters and not by its jokes, there is no purpose in mentioning "Turd Ferguson".

For your second version: we don't give the readers any and all information about each of the characters. We could mention that Connery wears a gray jacket in the episode with Robin Williams and a black jacket in the episode with Keanu Reeves. It would be "more accurate information" and help identify the sketch. However, that level of detail is unnecessary and inappropriate. Croctotheface 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Turd Fergusson is an laias since an alias is simply a second name taken by a person without legal recognition. It does not requoire the adoption of a second identity.

2. I don't ask you to provide "all information about each of the characters" mearly their names. Burt Reynolds assumes the name Turd Fergusson. Hence the assumed name should be listed parenthetically next to the legal name.

3. Your anaology regarding the charatcers clothing is irrelevent. I am discussing identifying the characters' names, not their clothing. Please focus.

4. The section lists the characters names. Turd Fergusson is a second name used by one of the charatcers. Hence, it should be on the list. This makes the list more accurate. Why do you want to make the list less accurate? Why do you wish to withhold information from the readers? 141.166.154.63 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, snide comments like "please focus", which I have thus far been ignoring, are not helpful to reaching an agreement about how to best improve the encyclopedia. Second, the bottom line here is that the section identifies episodes by their characters. It actually says "celebrity contestants". Burt Reynolds is both a celebrity and a contestant on the show. "Turd Ferguson" is a joke name that Reynolds insists Trebek call him for the sake of being funny and/or obnoxious. Croctotheface 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a joke name but it is also an assumed name. You state "the section identifies episodes by their characters." Aagreed! And noting the Turd Fergusson alias better identifies the episode for the reader. There are other episodes with Burt Reynolds. There are other episodes with Sean Connery. There is onlyne with Turd. 141.166.154.63 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you "aagree" that the section is only concerned with characters. Considering that the episode has four characters: Trebek, Connery, Reynolds, and French Stewart, not five, I don't really see why you insist on listing five names. Is the standard what "better identifies the episode"? If it is, we return to my question about whether mentioning Connery's clothing, which would certainly better identify the episode through specifics, should be mentioned in that section. Croctotheface 16:38, 9 September 20

I don't list Turd Fergusson as a seperate character. As you can plainly read it is written French Stewart, Burt Reynolds (aka Turd Ferguson), Sean Connery. It is thus clear that Turd Ferguson is another name for Burt Reynolds. As for standards: it should be what best identify the episode in a concise manner. Identifying a character's clothing does not accomplish this. Identifyfing their name does. And identifying an assumed name does it better still. As the addition of "aka Turd Ferguson ode snot make the line less concise but does make it more accurate it is the best identification for the episode. So why do you wish to withold pertinent episode identfication information from the reader? 141.166.224.83 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to list "another name for Burt Reynolds"? What does that accomplish? The version without "Turd Ferguson" lists the airdate and celebrity contestants, which are the criteria set at the head of the section and are plenty to uniquely identify the episode. If any and all information that can help identify is relevant by definition, I don't see why clothing, jokes they told, and so forth are not relevant as well. Is it lack of "conciseness"? Appending "gray jacket" to Connery would spend fewer letters than appending "Turd Ferguson" to Reynolds. Furthermore, the MOST concise way to identify Burt Reynolds is "Burt Reynolds", or maybe just "Reynolds". "Burt Reynolds (aka Turd Ferguson)" is decidedly LESS concise than the version I prefer. Croctotheface 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it so important not only to me but apaprently to other users. As to what it accomplishes: it better identifies the sketch and the characters portrayed therin. 141.166.224.83 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never proposed that "any and all information that can help identify is relevant." What I have proposed is that the charatcers names be listed in such a way as to produce the most accuracy. Clothing does not serve to identify the charatcers. Jokes generally do but to add them in would make the description uneccesarily lengthy. However, adding Turd Fergusson makes the listing more accurate without making it too long. The addiiton of 'aka Turd Fergusson' does not make any real difference regarding how concise the entry is, as you seem to suppose. It is but two words with the abbreviation 'aka.' 141.166.224.83 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, the addition of 'aka Turd Ferguson' will make the entry more accurate. Further, it will not make the entry unreasonably lengthy. Hence accuracy is not an issue and your concerns about lengthiness are unfounded. I therefore must ask: why do you wish to withhold this information from the reader? 141.166.224.83 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you argue that mentioning the joke makes the section "more accurate" when the purpose of the section is just to identify the chracters? The chracter, Burt Reynolds, is already uniquely identified by "Burt Reynolds". Croctotheface 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The character uses two names in this episode. Thus, for the sake of accuracy, both names should be listed: the legal name as normal and the assumed name parenthetically. The fact that the assumed name is a joke is irrelevent as joke or not it is still a name. 141.166.224.83 17:5ing. 3, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds appears in three other sketches. His identification in this episode is hardly "unique." 141.166.224.83 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First, don't increase indents when you made two comments. Indents are used to indicate responses, and you're responding to me, not yourself. To the "two names" argument: "Ferguson" is not a name for the character. He doesn't change his identity. It's a name used for the sake of a joke. The character, or "celebrity contestant" to use the language of the page, remains the same. Your second point is just raises the "gray jacket Connery" vs. "black jacket Connery" issue again. I could certainly see someone referring to the Connery/Reeves/Swank episode as "the one where Connery was in all black". Does that mean that we need to mention that here? Or is the purpose just to list the characters? Croctotheface 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never proposed adding the character's clothing to the list of character names. I have proposed adding a character's (assumed) name to a list of character names. These two are in no way analogous.141.166.227.172 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am proposing adding an assumed name parenthetically to a list of legal names. In other words, I am adding a name to a list of names. I would add that this is done regularly by police and other law enforcement agencies. If they have a suspect named John Smith who goes by the name Adam Jones they send out a bulletin for John Smith (aka Adam Jones). Why? Because for identification the assumed name is as relevant as the legal one. Thus the standard you propose is not even used professionally.141.166.227.172 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You have never explained why an assumed name, listed parenthetically, does not belong on a list of names. Why should an assumed name be withheld from a list of names?141.166.227.172 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indents) Because it doesn't serve any necessary function to add that name. The section, without "Turd Ferguson", already uniquely identifies all the characters in the sketch. The "Ferguson" thing is just a joke, and WP is not in the business of retelling jokes. Croctotheface 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as what harm could be done, I'll put it this way. We both seem to agree that "Turd Ferguson" has two properties: it is a joke, and it is a name. The question, then, is whether it should be treated more like a name, the purpose of which is to uniquely identify something, or a joke, the purpose of which is to amuse and entertain. Since "Turd Ferguson" has no unique identity, and yet it has a great deal of humorous power as a joke, that leads me to believe that it is much more joke than name. Since mentioning it does not lend any more information about the characters in the sketch--Burt Reynolds is still Burt Reynolds, and he's identified either way--then mentioning the name just functions to retell a joke. If we retell this joke, why not another, and then another, and so on. Croctotheface 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No the question is, since it is used as aname, should it be inlcuded in a list of names. The answer is yes. There is no reason to withold it. Including it makes the list more accurate. It is irreelvent if Turd Fergusson has a unique identity. It is irrelevent that it is a joke. What is relvent is that (1) its a name, (2) this article includes a list of names, (3) the list of names should be made as accurate as possible, (4) the addition of the assumed name 'Turd Fergusson' accomplishes this. 141.166.154.63 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, fine, I should not have been so agressive at the start of this discussion. But I consider your handling of this issue close to, if not actual vandalism. Now, I have made an argument for the Turd Fergusson assumed name to be added to a list of names. You now justiify its exclusion by claiming that it can't be added because it is a joke. You seem to forget though that we are discussing a comedy sketch: jokes are 100% relevent. And if there is a joke name, not only should be it added but it must be added for the sake of accuracy. Here, with turd Fergusson, we have an assumed name taken on as a joke. And here, in the wikipedia article, we have a list of character names. Why is it appropriate to withold the assumed name from the list of names? Because its a joke?! If anything, that is more reason to put it in! 141.166.154.63 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Two points:

1. As I've said like three or four times now, it's not some sort of indiscriminate "list of names", it's a list of the characters (or to use the language of the page, "celebrity contestants") on the sketch. "Turd Ferguson" is not a character or celebrity or contestant.
2. Regarding the idea that "jokes are 100% relevant", it's true that jokes can be discussed in an encylopedia article on a comedy sketch. That does not mean that all jokes or any jokes that appear on the sketch deserve to be discussed by definition. The section in question is designed to be completely serious: it exists to identify individual episodes of the sketch, their air dates, and the characters that appeared on them. Why is it bad to put a joke here? First, because it's not meant to have jokes, it's just meant to have boring old information. Second, there's the slippery slope that I've mentioned several times already: if we allow this joke into the section, then there is no compelling argument to exclude other jokes from that section. Croctotheface 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No its not an indiscriminate list of names, its an accurate one. It mearly lacks one peice of information: Burt Reynold's assumed name.

I never propose listing all jokes. What I propsoe is listing all names which includes the assumed name. If the fact that it is a joke has an y relevence then it should strengthen my point. Why? Becuase (1) Wwe have a list of names relevent to a comedy sketch, (2) Wwe have a joke name from the comedy sketch, (3) ergo three the joke name should be included. It is a name being added t a list of names. And it is an example of the skit's comedy directly related to the list of names. 141.166.154.63 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To review: we have a list of names in the article and we have an assumed name used in this comedy sketch that has been excluded becuase apparently it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia artice about a comedy sketch to list an (assumed) name because the (assumed) name is also a joke. Apparently Croc thinks an encyolpedia article about a comedy cannot give examples of the sketch's comedic jokes. Apparently Croc thinks an encyclopedia's list of names cannot include an assumed name parenthetically. 141.166.154.63 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, I propose a 'Request for Comment.' I am confident that reasonable moderators reading this discussion will see that the addition of '(aka Turd Fergusson)' is approriate and that your deletion of it is not. 141.166.154.63 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not actually addressing my points. You've reapeated, over and over, that "Ferguson" is an "assumed name". I actually dispute that point, but setting that disagreement aside, I have provided several reasons to exclude it. It seems that you believe that "it's an assumed name" somehow proves, self-evidently, that it should be included right where you want to include it. I should mention that "Turd Ferguson" is mentioned elsewhere in the article, in a place where it's more appropriate to mention jokes. You haven't really addressed any of my actual arguments here. I'll restate:

1. "Turd Ferguson" is both a name and a joke, but it functions more like a joke. If it were included, it would be the only joke in what is otherwise a serious section.
2. If we include this one joke, there is no logical basis for excluding other jokes.
3. "Turd Ferguson" is unnecessary information. The names and dates that are already there are quite sufficient to identify the sketches and characters.
4. "Turd Ferguson" does not fit the criteria set forth at the head of the section: "Turd Ferguson" is not a celebrity, and he is not a contestant on the fictional game show depicted in the sketch. In effect, the section has 39 names that are just like one another: they are the name of the celebrity contestant characters on individiual iterations of the sketch. If we add "Ferguson", there will be 39 names that are just like one another and one name that is nothing like any of the others. Croctotheface 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It funcions equally as a name and a joke. You have never demonstrated how it fails to act as a name. A name identifies a person and the name Turd Fergusson identified Burt Reynolds in this sketch. Hence, Turd Ferguson is a (assumed) name worthy of addition to the name list.

2. There is no joke domino effect. You would be including a joke in a list of names because that joke is also a name. That does not 'snowball' into anything.

3. Turd Ferguson is accurate information that better identifies to entry. It is thus makes the entry more accurate. And accuracy should be your first & foremost goal.

4. Turd Ferguson is the assumed name of the celebrity Burt Reynolds. It thus meets the section criteria perfectly.

4.1 If we add Ferguson, there will still be 39 names that are like one another only one will have a short parenthetical note after it. The entry, with or without the note is still just like the others, a list of three names seperated by commas. 141.166.154.63 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. You're saying that the purpose of "Turd Fergusson" is just as much to identify someone as to get a laugh? Are you serious about that?
2. Why should we only allow fake name jokes? I don't really see that as a meaningful distinction.
3. It is only "more accurate" if our goal is to do more than identify the sketch uniquely. Are you saying that there is a degree of confusion here? There is a sketch that aired on the same date with the same characters that did not include "Turd Ferguson"? The sketch is already identified 100% accurately. If you want to have as much information as possible, why not Connery's wardrobe as well?
4. The header says "celebrity contestants" and says nothing about "assumed names" or "name jokes" or what have you. The celebrity contestant is Burt Reynolds. He is identified. Your response here does not address the point at all.
5. (was "4.1") Your argument here had been that we should add "a name to a list of names". My reply is that we would then have 39 names that are just like each other and one that is totally different. Now you seem to be shifting the goalposts and saying that "Turd Ferguson" is less like a name and more like a "short parenthetical note". So does that mean that we can include any short parenthetical note? Connery's wardrobe? Swords? What's the difference there? Croctotheface 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. As an assumed name, it identifies him. As a joke, it serves the purposes of comedy. You cannot possibly quantify which it does more and which it does less. Nor does it matter, the fact that it is an assumed name mans it should be added to the list of names.

1a. Further, the name Turd Fergusson is recognizable to every fan of this sketch. It has therefore succeeded at clearly identifying the character.

2. I don't know why you do not see a meaningful distinction. It is an assumed name. There is in this article a list of names. Therefore, the assumed name should be added parenthetically to the list of names. This addition makes the list complete and it better informs the readers. Don't you want your lists to be complete? Don't you want your readers to be informed? Why do you wish to withhold information from them?

3. The header identifies celebrity contestants by their names. Turd Fergusson is an assumed name. The assumed name also identifies the contestant Burt Reynolds. Similarly, assumed names often identify fugitives for the police, sometimes as well or even better than the subject's legal name. Here, in the context of SNL Celebrity Jeopardy, the name Turd Fergusson identifies Burt Reynolds almost as well as his legal name. Anybody familiar with the name would recognize it as a reference to Burt Reynolds. Burt Reynolds himself, in real life, and probably to his annoyance, has almost certainly been called Turd Fergusson on at least one occasion.

4. We can include any short parenthetical note that is relevant in a list of names. The only thing relevant to a list of names are more names. So, we could add other assumed names if there were any. However, there aren't.

5. Do you honestly believe clothing is relevant in a list of names? It would be relevant for a list of articles of clothing worn by the contestants. It would not on a list of the contestant's names. This is, first and foremost, the reason your analogy RE clothing is and has always been irrelevant. 141.166.229.164 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now to review: there is a list of names in the article. They are the names of the celebrity contestants portrayed in each episode. In one episode, a celebrity contest takes on an assumed name. This assumed name is used orally and visually throughout the rest of the skit. Now, assuming the editor wants to have complete and accurate information (which for me at this moment is not a given), he would include the assumed name parenthetically within the list. 141.166.229.164 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw this in the article: "Categories that do not fit this profile are often misunderstood by the celebrities and transformed by one of the contestants (almost always Connery) into sexually suggestive phrases. For example, he misreads "Therapists" as "The Rapists", "An Album Cover" as "Anal Bum Cover", and "The Pen Is Mightier", a category about quotes from famous authors, as “The Penis Mightier," which Connery and Nicolas Cage believe is a product designed for enhancing the male sexual organ."

Now I have been told by Croc that adding "(aka Turd Fergusson)" will somehow force him to add every joke in the series to the article. So how come listing all the joke category names in the main article is safe while adding one assumed name to a list of character names appended at the end is dangerous?

I smell a double-standard Croc! 141.166.229.164 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really so hard for you to understand the difference between describing a joke in a section about the sketch and its comedy and avoiding including irrelevant jokes in a serious section about the sketch's episodes, characters, and air dates? There SHOULD BE a different standard because they are two totally different sections. And I take it you've given up on responding to my points? You're just going to repeat "it's an assumed name" as if that actually proves something? Didn't see your reply; responding now. Croctotheface 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets see because 'joke' and 'assumed name' are not mutually exclusive. Turd Ferguson is being added because it is a name, not because it is a joke. In context, this should be obvious. 141.166.229.164 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, since you never refuted the assumed name issue, it actually does prove something, unlike your clothes analogy. 141.166.229.164 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Croc: Would it be inappropriate for me to add '(aka Starbuck)' [or something to that affect] after the name Kara Thrace on a list of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined) characters? If not, why is that different from what I propose here? 141.166.229.164 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

oh wait, its been done! Do I smell wiki-precedent? wiki-stare-decisis? 141.166.229.164 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's completely different. Why? All the reasons I explained above that you have generally failed to respond to. It's a joke more than it is a name. It's not a name he "assumes" in any capacity. It is already mentioned elsewhere in the article and therefore unnecessary to mention there. It would be the only joke in a serious section. It would be the only joke name in a list of non-joke names. Croctotheface 03:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it completely different. We are discussing the addition of non-legal names (assumed name, alias, nickname) to lists of names on wikipedia articles. I'm sure the nickname (it isn't even an assumed name like Turd Fergusson) is listed earlier in the Battlestar Galactica article. I'm sure its listed many times before. And I'm sure its in the character list. Why then does a nickname deserve better treatment then an assumed name/alias? 141.166.229.164 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that we could replace any mention of Reynolds in the article with "Turd Ferguson"? Would you advocate that? Croctotheface 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOL As you can plainly read, I have always proposed adding 'Turd Ferguson' parenthetically. Indeed, that is what I have actually done! Why do you insist on putting words into my mouth, Croc? 141.166.229.164 04:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So Croc, why should nicknames (like Starbuck) be included in wikipedia character name lists but assumed names (like Turd Ferguson) excluded? 141.166.229.164 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility is valued here, first of all. Second, stop adding a level of indentation. You're not responding to yourself. Thirdly, my point was that I suspect that with the case you gave, it would be possible to, in many if not all cases where one would use "Kara Thrace" to substitute "Starbuck" and be understood. I assume that this substitution would often represent no functional change whatsoever. That's because they both have the same kind of idenitifying power. If it were not possible to do this with "Turd Ferguson", if a sentence like "Norm MacDonald appeared four times as Turd Ferguson" would not be correct or would not make sense, then would that not suggest that "Starbuck" and "Turd Ferguson" are, as I suggested, rather different? Croctotheface 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read your posts, you have no high ground when it comes to civility, Croc. 141.166.229.164 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I have never made a case for substitution. i have been consistent. The alias, assumed name, or nick name should be added parenthetically after the legal name. How does that logically lead to the deletion of the legal name? 141.166.229.164 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The function as I have stated is maximum accuracy. What function does adding the nickname 'Starbuck' add to the Battlestar Galactica article? Answer: it makes it more accurate. So too with adding Turd Ferguson here. 141.166.229.164 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that there is a difference in identifying power. Kara Thrace is referred to interchangeably as 'Kara' and 'Starbuck' in Battlestar Galactica (BSG). Thus, in the list of recurring BSG characters, she is listed as Kara Thrace and Starbuck side by side. The only difference between the names is that Starbuck is listed in such a manner as to make it clear to the reader that it is a nickname. Now, Burt Reynolds is referred to interchangeably as 'Burt' and 'Turd Ferguson' in one of four episodes. Thus in the character list for that episode (and only that episode) he should be listed as both Burt Reynolds and Turd Fergusson, provided the listing makes it clear that Turd Ferguson is an assumed name. 141.166.229.164 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of wikipedia consistency either you mus add 'Turd Ferguson' to the list of character names or the editor of the Battlestar Galactica article must remove 'Starbuck.' 141.166.229.164 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) I have remained civil. "LOLOLOLOLOL" is not civil. Thank you for properly indenting your comments. My point remains that a nickname such as "Starbuck", which is frequently used, reaches a threshold of relevance and therefore obviously deserves mention. "Turd Ferguson" is NEVER used interchangably. It is barely used at all: the Reynolds character is addressed that way once because he insists on it. That's it. There are, I think, five lines in one sketch that make reference to it. Your change lends it so much weight--to put it in a purely serious and informational section--that it throws everything off kilter. You really haven't addressed my reply to your "accuracy" remark. How is the current section lacking in accuracy? It currently sets out to uniquely identify episodes of the sketch. Does it fail to do that? Croctotheface 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your 'Norm MacDonald' analogy is irrelevant since assumed names were only used once in SNL Celebrity Jeopardy. Still, I am glad that you acknowledge that 'Turd Ferguson' has identifying power. That means that you acknowledge that it is not only a joke but also a (assumed) name. Croc: " I assume that this substitution would often represent no functional change whatsoever. That's because they both have the same kind of idenitifying power." This having been established, it should be added to the list of names for the sake of accuracy. 141.166.229.164 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RE civility: Croc: "There SHOULD BE a different standard because they are two totally different sections. And I take it you've given up on responding to my points? You're just going to repeat "it's an assumed name" as if that actually proves something?" Adding the strike doesn't remove the line, I can read the insult plainly. 141.166.229.164 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In a short sketch five lines is quite a lot. Bjork might have a total of five lines in the 'rock n' roll' edition. Should we delete here character's name from the list too? (Answer: No) The number of times 'Turd Ferguson' is named is irreverent. What is relevant is: does the character use it as a (second) name? Answer: Yes. 141.166.229.164 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Croc, should we delete 'Starbuck' from the BSG article or add 'Turd Ferguson' here? Remember, wikipedia is supposed to be consistent. 141.166.229.164 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you ponder that question while I sleep. Please, for the sake of civility, do not remove '(aka Turd Ferguson)' from the article while I rest and work tomorrow. 141.166.229.164 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "should be", I used capitals for emphasis. I don't see how that is uncivil. Regarding the other example you give, I struck the line because I saw that it was actually incorrect: you had replied to my points above. That's how editors use strikeouts here: for instance, when I thought I overestimated the number of lines that referred to the joke, I struck it out and changed it. (Ironically, I think the real number is actually five lines, and both my original and correction were wrong). Anyway, I apologize if you took it my comment personally, but I was addressing what I thought was your lack of a reply, not you personally. That said, I think I did get a little too heated there, and I apologize for my tone as well.

Now, to the substance of what you said: first, I have already agreed that "Turd Ferguson" is both a name and a joke. I submit that it has very little value as a name, but lots of value as a joke, and therefore we should treat it like a joke. Your reply, that we "can't know" whether it is more of a joke or not, is puzzling to me, especially in light of some of the other things you were willing to speculate about. The fact that it has "turd" in it and Reynolds says right in the sketch that his purpose in using it is that "it's a funny name" should indicate that we're dealing more with humor than identity here. I suppose that you're unwilling to concede this point because if you do, it's hard to find a reason to justify keeping your edit.

To your "Starbuck" analogy, there is a big difference between a nickname/alias/assumed name that has a lot of identifying power (such as Starbuck) and one that does not and exists for a different purpose (Turd). Your edit is more akin to, in a list of Battlestar episodes and characters, listing a nickname that is referred to briefly, in passing, in one episode, and never mentioned again. The term that often gets bandied about for things like that on Wikipedia is "fancruft".

I agree that, as a joke, it's not insignificant, and therefore we discuss it in the section of the article that deals with the sketch, its humor, and so on. We should not elevate this joke so much that it is the only joke referred to in a serious section. Croctotheface 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Turd Ferugusson is one of the most memorable parts of this sketch; both for its comedic and identifying value. I don't see how it lacks comparable identifying power when you consider the difference between SNL Celebrity Jeopardy and BSG. The difference is that the nickname Starbuck is used in every episode of BSG while the assumed name Turd Fergusson is used in 1 of 4 SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits. As such, the assumed name should only be noted in the list entry for that episode. Its addition elsewhere on the list would be inaccurate and hence vandalism. 141.166.229.162 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I also wish to posit one additional point regarding vandalism. Adding Turd Ferguson to the list actually prevents its vandalism. You asked me what if somebody deletes the Burt Reynolds name and just put up Turd Ferguson. If somebody is absolutely bent on vandalizing the list by adding the Turd Ferguson name incorrectly they will of course do so. But they are far less likely to do this if the name is already there. It would make the addition redundant. I would like you to RSVP on this point. 141.166.229.162 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to discuss how a nickname and a fake name joke are different. I don't think that any of my attempts at logic are having an affect here, and I have better things to do. I never made any point relating to vandalism. My point was to say that if we accept the argument you were making, then logically it would be necessary to also accept certain incorrect premises as well. Croctotheface 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You actually have suggested that if we add 'Turd Ferguson' in that somebody would then delete Burt Reynolds. You have also posted that adding 'Turd Ferguson' will lead others to post jokes like 'Swords,' which, on an episode-character list, would be vandalism. So you have discussed vandalism several times. 141.166.154.204 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now do not get me wrong, I think adding Turd will probably have no affect on anything, beside s making the list a little bit more accurate. But if it did have an affect, i think it would be a reduction in vandalism. 141.166.154.204 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Holy cowbell. All the precious time just to discuss such a trivial matter. Came here because I saw the related request for outside opinions on WT:WAF. My opinion is that the reference to that one-time joke in that section is indeed rather unnecessary. It's a very minor and also isolated detail, and plot summaries should be as succinct as possible. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Its a list of names, not a plot summary.

2. Further, the joke is used, visually and orally throughout the skit.

3. As you acknowledge, it would be only a minor addition. Since this minor addition makes the list a little more accurate, and since other wikipedia user have indictae dthey want this addition (see previous topics), why shouldn't 'Turd Fergusson' be added parenthetically? 141.166.229.162 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. So

2. What?

3. I've addressed this point over and over. Why is it more accurate? The section does not endeavor to do anything more than the non-"turd" version would do. AldeBear's point is that we should avoid unnecessary minor details. You have never addressed my point about the section doing everything it already sets out to do without referencing this joke. Reynolds is already identified. You want to take the unnecessary step of identifying him twice. Croctotheface 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. An assumed name is germane to a list of names.

2. It is not a one-time gag; the assumed name is used throughout the skit

3. It provides additional accurate information about the names of the characters in this episode of the skit. It does not identify the character twice but rather identified both names used by the character. Now, if a person were looking up this skit and wasn't very familiar with it but knew one episode had a character calling himself Turd Ferguson that would he do? Under the plan you and Croc have, they would have to read through the main article before finding out that 'Turd Ferguson' is just another name for Burt Reynolds. Under my plan, such a reader could simply scroll down to the episode/character list (the first place they would likely look for the name) and see that, Turd = Burt. Thus, for such a reader, my set-up would helpful. And remember, we have this article in part for the benefit of anybody who, for whatever reason, wants/needs to look up SNL Celebrity Jeopardy. Fans of the sakit generally don't have to do that. 141.166.154.204 23:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is futile.

We've spent days going back and forth on this. I really don't think it's had any affect. I don't mind this kind of thing, so I don't want to say it was wasted time. However, I don't think there's really a purpose to continuing further. I and 141... will not be able to agree or compromise. As of now, we have two current opinions against the "Turd" version and your opinion in favor. Regarding older discussions of this matter, I think it's fair to say that the other editors who wished to add "Turd" were persuaded that it was not a productive change. I recall the one editor who wanted to mention "Turd" becuase of the Turd Ferguson redirect, and he was satisfied with mentioning the name in the appropriate place "the "the sketch" section) rather the inappropriate place (the "episodes" section). Vehicles for further comment, such as WP:RFC, is probably a necessary step. I will not reiterate my arguments here; if someone really wants to review them above, they're welcome. I'd be happy to clarify anything if another user wants me to. Croctotheface 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I unfortunately did not have to opportunity to participate in this discussion, so I do feel somewhat cheated here actually. Recognizing the disagreement among the editors: some want it in, some don't, I think the fair default is to put in it, since surely it doesn't harm the article. The joke is about an assumed name and an assumed name belongs in a list of character names. 141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, more than anything else at this stage, I am impressed by how very reactionary you all are. Even the new point of view editors are this way! Adding 'aka Turd Ferguson' does not logically force you to add or subtract anything else from the list - its too small an edit for that. I really have no idea how y'all came up with the idea that it forces you to add 'chief' jokes and all this other sort of nonsense. Soon, I am not convinced by anything I have seen here. 141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am convinced of is that I should no longer try to help wikipedia in any way. Which is your loss - with my login (which I haven't used here) I have authored or co-authored about a dozen articles. After witnessing the above (and below) discussion it appears the spirit of wikipedia is the spirit of reactionary editors unwilling to allow regular users to make even minor edits without ridiculous over-analysis aimed at discrediting even minor changes. 141.166.154.204 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have an account, why did you use these five different IP accounts instead? Croctotheface 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From the very beginning, (even before our discussion when first made the effort) it appeared as though you were accusing anybody making the 'Turd Ferguson' edit of vandalism. More than anything else, actually, thats what has annoyed me here. Anyway, I considered this an indignity, since I believe the edit is entirely correct and appropriate. However, I wasn't about to get my account locked or anything like that. So I just posted as an unsigned in user. 141.166.154.204 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you didn't sign in so that you could evade the 3RR? Croctotheface 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't sign in because I believed there was a potential for administrative retaliation. It is inappropriate to declare an edit vanaldism on its face, espeically when it is accurate. 141.166.227.172 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In any event, as a gesture of good will, I will now log in and propose a compromise. h/o 141.166.227.172 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal: Footnote

Okay compromise: First to sum up, I want 'aka Turd Ferguson' added parenthetically next to the name Burt Reynolds in the listing for the episode where the character of Burt Reynolds uses it as an assumed name. You do not. I propose a compromise: instead of adding the parenthetical note a footnote be placed next to the name Burt Reynolds in the relevant entry line. The footnote will read "in this episode the character of Burt Reynolds also uses the name 'Turd Ferguson" or something to that affect. Does this compromise meet with your approval Croc? RIVA02906 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the footnote to illustrate what I am proposing. RSVP to the proposal. RIVA02906 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrative retaliation? Why would an administrator retaliate? As far as I know, there's no administrator involved in this dispute. If an administrator took any action, it would be a block or warning because of your pledge to edit war. Anyway, I sincerely appreciate your newfound desire to compromise. However, the material is either appropriate for the section or it isn't. The consensus of editors here is that "Turd Ferguson" is inappropriate for the section. The footnote is less obtrusive, but making reference to this joke still gives it undue weight, still introduces a joke into a serious section, and so forth. It's not the answer. Croctotheface 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you retaliate? Because I think you are petty! Consider that 'invitation to wikipedia' you sent me. RIVA02906 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When did I get promoted to administrator? Regarding the welcome template, I thought that, because you were posting from IPs, you were unfamiliar with Wikipedia. As it turns out, you had an account but were posting from your IP addresses to try to conceal your identity. Had you posted from an account, there would have been no reason for me to post the welcome message. Croctotheface 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate my desire for compromise. I saw that you were not proposing one but inferred, from the titled of this subheading, that you may be open to one. I am disappointed that you are not willing to compromise. The only reason you provide is inadequate since there has been no consensus about the use of a footnote. (Given earlier user inputs favoring the addition of TF, its debatable whether the consensus you speak of in fact exists). I will post the footnote again to allow you to reconsider. I sincerely hope that you step back a minute and consider the issue. RIVA02906 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. If we established a consensus that the footnote were inappropriate, would you find a different way to indroduce the same information and continue to claim that there is no consensus? This really seems disruptive at this point. Croctotheface 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

At no time have I really changed the means of introduction. That is, its an assumed name and I think it belongs on a list of names. So my position has never changed here. What has changed is that, in the interests of compromise, I have proposed another means of listing it, one that you might find less 'intrusive.' Footnotes, in the Chicago Manual of Style/Turabian, can be used to enter information that is not directly related to the issue at hand. Thus, the author can enter information he believes would be useful or interesting to the reader but which he cannot introduce another way. Now, I don't know that wikipedia uses Turabian, but if you consider the assumed name 'Turd Ferguson' unrelated to the name Burt Reynolds, you should still, on the example of Turabian, be willing to include it as a footnote. So what really is your problem? Do you want an equitable solution or do you just want to 'beat me?' RIVA02906 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The footnote would satisfy my interests and the interests of earlier users. Further, if somebody unfamiliar with the series were to use this article to look up the character 'Turd Ferguson,' not knowing that Turd is just a gag name used by the character Burt Reynolds, they would quickly see the footnote on the character list and clicking on to find that yes TF = BR. So this setup would also satisfy the interests of individuals using this page for casual research. RIVA02906 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating this any longer. If your interests remain the same and you feel that this edit accomplishes your goal, then how is that consistent with the discussion below, wherein two other editors disagree with what you want to accomplish? Your edits are against conensus and disruptive. I did not constantly edit war with you before; instead, I left your version in place until two other editors came by and established a consensus that it's inappropriate to include a reference to Ferguson where you want to. If you want to seek additional comments, you should reciprocate by leaving my version in place while you attempt to gather consensus for the edits you want to make. Croctotheface 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You see your first sentence would have been a good lead-in to accepting my compromise proposal. Any compromise per force requires both parties to give up something. I have done that and you have not. RIVA02906 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather, you hold to your party line that the 'consensus' you imposed on the users before I arrived is sacrosanct. It is not. Thus it appears nothing has changed after all, a pity. RIVA02906 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no consensus on the footnote. And you have failed to respond to my post regarding the difference between footnotes and parenthetical reference. Any proper History or English major, or any law student, would know the difference and know it is important. RIVA02906 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For your benefit, I will repeat my earlier post RE footnotes and their use: What has changed is that, in the interests of compromise, I have proposed another means of listing it, one that you shouldfind less 'intrusive.' Footnotes, in the Chicago Manual of Style/Turabian, can be used to enter information that is not directly related to the issue at hand. Thus, the author can enter information he believes would be useful or interesting to the reader but which he cannot introduce another way. Now, I don't know that wikipedia uses Turabian, but if you consider the assumed name 'Turd Ferguson' unrelated to the name Burt Reynolds, you should still, on the example of Turabian, be willing to include it as a footnote. So what really is your problem? Do you want an equitable solution or do you just want to 'beat me?'

From what I am seeing above it appears that you do not like equitable solutions. This was my original concern when I posted. Perhaps this too has not changed. RIVA02906 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This "solution" does not address the concerns of me or the two other editors who didn't want your first version. The history of this dispute is that you pledged to edit war and then edit warred. You were not interested in finding a "compromise" then, you were just interested in reverting to your version. Once there was a clear consensus established against your version, now you're using the language of "compromise", when in fact there is no consensus to implement your changes. You want me to gather another group of outside editors to find that your current version is inappropriate. If I do that, you will no doubt have another "compromise" version that you will edit war to implement. This is just plain disruption at this point. If you want to find someplace to gather commenters and hope they agree that your version is superior, please do that. When the situation was reversed, and I was looking for commenters, I left your version of the page intact. You should extend me the same courtesty. Croctotheface 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

None of those editors have addressed me proposed compromise. Also, one of those two editors as I recall admitted not having seen the sketches. And one of those editors wanted TF added on. RIVA02906 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, whats this other proposal I have hidden away so sneakily? The only solutions I can think of are a parenthetical reference (my ideal solution), a footnote reference (my compromise proposal), or no reference (your fiat)? Do you know of a referencing systewm beisdes aprenthetical and footnotes Croc? I don't. RIVA02906 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have never proposed a compromise for me to be interested in. Your solution this entire time has been 'it is either Croc's was or nothing.' This was actually your position at the start of the second talk subsection about this issue! Clearly this attitude predates my arrival on this board. RIVA02906 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want courtesy I have offered it to you: a straight compromise between us. You have made no counter-offer. And your only reason for rejecting it appears to be that it doesn't give you 'total victory.' In short, you are not negotiating in good faith. I am convinced that there is NO compromise that you are willing to accept and that this has been true from the beginning. But if I am wrong you can prove it by adding the footnote yourself. RIVA02906 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, remember that I was not the first person to want Turd Ferguson added and I will not be the last. You can settle this issue with me now or you can repeat this discussion and your so-called editing-wars with half a dozen other SNL Celebrity Jeopardy fans. RIVA02906 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) My position is that it's inappropriate to draw attention to "Turd Ferguson" anywhere but in the section called "the sketch". Offering to put a reference to it in exactly the same spot you wanted it all along does not acknowledge or make any concession to my position. I do maintain that my way is correct, and the other editors who have come around to look at the issue agree. The editors who wanted to add Turd Ferguson back in 2006 either didn't care about the encyclopedia in a serious way, didn't pursue the issue, or came around to agree with me. Of the four editors who have addressed the issue recently, three hold my position and you are alone in yours. Again, if you want to find more editors to comment on the issue, file a Request for Comment or something. Don't come up with different methods of accomplishing exactly what you want and pass it off as compromise. Let me ask you this: if the same two editors below come back and agree that the footnote is also not a good solution, will you drop the issue? Croctotheface 01:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Chart Proposal

Third Fourth Fifth Party Opinion - Initiated

The "Turd Ferguson" reference adds nothing other than an includion of a joke into the cast listing. If Final Jeopardy came and Norm MacDonald was appearing as another celebrity, such as William Shatner, who then went on to explain that Burt Reynolds had to go to the bathroom and asked him to step in and "keep an eye on the bridge" while he was gone, it would be an actual celebrity cast member modification that justified an inclusion in this list. But Norm MacDonald appearing as Reynolds appearing as Turd Ferguson in an injustifiable cast modification. The cast is the same, but Norm MacDonald, still playing the part of Burt Reynolds, is, as Burt Reynolds, making a joke.

Google searching of Turd Ferguson is merely a search for this joke. Nobody is disputing that this joke exists or was actually made. If "The Rapist" joke was a type of joke that could be Googled (it can't, though, because rapists and references to rapists are too common and this joke isn't a joke until reference to Sean Connery, Celebrity Jeopardy or any other entity of SNL is included), it wouldn't jusity its inclusion, even if it serves to indicate the most notable joke of that skit, as the "Turd Ferguson" joke may. The fact that "Turd Ferguson" does not exist outside of Celebrity Jeopardy is the reason why a Google search is so successful -- not because Turd Ferguson was a cast member of Celebrity Jeopardy.

Thus, the cast listing should not include mention of Turd Ferguson.

A good way to solve this problem would be, perhaps, to modify the cast listing itself into a cast listing/episode guide, including the main jokes alongside the episode. This might work well if it was entered into a chart, as suggested below. If someone can help with the format, in terms of spacing, centering, etc., that would be very helpful prior to inserting it into the article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode #	Episode Date	Celebrity contestants	Notes
1	December 7, 1996	Sean Connery, Burt Reynolds, Jerry Lewis	INSERT JOKES HERE
2	May 10, 1997	Phil Donahue, Burt Reynolds, Marlon Brando	INSERT JOKES HERE
3	October 4, 1997	John Travolta, Burt Reynolds, Michael Keaton	INSERT JOKES HERE
4	May 9, 1998	Sean Connery, Minnie Driver, Jeff Goldblum	INSERT JOKES HERE
5	October 24, 1998	Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE
6	March 20, 1999	Nicolas Cage, Calista Flockhart, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE
7	October 23, 1999	French Stewart, Burt Reynolds, Sean Connery	At one point, Burt Reynolds insists on being referred to as "Turd Ferguson."
8	April 15, 2000	Sean Connery, Keanu Reeves, Hilary Swank	INSERT JOKES HERE
9	December 16, 2000	Robin Williams, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE
10	February 8, 2001	Ozzy Osbourne, Martha Stewart, Sean Connery	SNL Prime-time extra II
11	September 29, 2001	Chris Tucker, Anne Heche, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE
12	May 18, 2002	Dave Matthews, Björk, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE
13	May 14, 2005	Bill Cosby, Sharon Osbourne, Sean Connery	INSERT JOKES HERE

Wait a second. I think I got it all wrong. Above, I was talking about mentioning the joke at all in the article. I just now realise that this is about re-telling the joke in the cast section, which of course is not appropriate. Sorry, but that's just not the way an encyclopedia article is supposed to be structured. It would (i) double the already existing mentioning of the joke in the plot summary section, and (ii) it would introduce a in-universe aspect in a non-descriptive section.

For policy-based reference, carefully read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information (part of WP:MOS), where it says: "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary." — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I could agree to the episode based chart proposed by DRosenbach as an alternative. — [ aldebaer⁠] 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks to DRosenbach for the third (or fourth, though I don't think fifth) opinion, and not just because he agreed with my point of view. Regarding the table, I'm not opposed to a table on principle, but I do have some concerns. There used to be such a section (see this old version), but I and other editors working on the article came around to believing that it did not really add much to the page. Could such a section be better implemented? Probably. The problem is that it would serve as a magnet for unencyclopedic content: that is, some jokes are identifiable and deserve mention, others do not. However, once there's one joke there, what's to stop someone from adding EVERY joke? I guess my position on this table is something like: I'm not opposed as such, it could be useful, but it could end up being more trouble than it's worth. Croctotheface 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that with articles like this, there's a real temptation for people who come across it to add their favorite joke. Sometimes, it might happen to be that it improves the article to mention their favorite joke where they put it. However, most of the time, it just bloats the article and adds unnecessary content. Regarding the table, it's certainly true that significant jokes can help identify episodes, but it's also true that insignificant jokes can do that as well. It's difficult to tell the editor who wants to add their favorite joke that this other joke belongs in the section, but their favorite joke doesn't. Logically, I would find it difficult, since there's really no good way to quantify joke importance, to say that "Turd Ferguson" or "Swords" are jokes that deserve to be mentioned here, but joke X does not. By contrast, if we just let everyone add every joke, then the article just becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. Croctotheface 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point re: the chart could be misunderstood as an invitation to add trivial material. Alternatively, the cast section could be rewritten as prose, which albeit I expect to be rather difficult and also unnecessary. — [ aldebaer⁠] 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can hear the argument for trying our best to keep people from adding every single joke. But it should be stated that one way to identify the skit episodes is by their chief jokes. While it might very well be opening a Pandora's box to label the episodes by their chief jokes (as "chief" could be quite subjective), I think it is the responsibility of those who author this article to put in as much helpful information as possible about the subject topic. When I try to think back on various episodes that I saw, I tend to remember celebrity parodies and jokes. I do think back, reminiscing about episode #6 or the one from December 16, 2000. I think about the one in which Reynolds decided to change his name or the category was "colors that rhyme with 'urple'." It is a disservice to the community to not include this very pertinent information. As I have been uninvolved with the frameworking of this article up until this point, I think I should remain uninvolved, because the only thing I realy have to offer is clarity, as I am unfamiliar with most of the episodes (ha...I was actualy surprised to see that there were only 13 of them...I thought there'd be like 40! {not factorial})

Anyway, to close, I make the following recommendations. That:

1. Turd Ferguson be removed immediately from the cast listing
2. The most popular and insightful jokes be included in a per-episode fashion. To abstain from properly informing readers about this highly pertinent information (these are, after all, comical skits, as it has been pointed out way too many times in defense of the inclusion of Turd Ferguson) because one or many are afraid of inviting vandalism or quasi-vandalism in the form of the constant addition of less and less popular and insightful jokes is really a shame and actually quite contrary to the purpose of this website. To prevent vandalism, we can just shut down Wikipedia.

Keep a cast list and include a episode-by-episode section, or incorporate it into the cast list...I leave the details to you. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern has never been that there would be an invitation for vandalism. I don't think that the "adding my favorite joke" edits are vandalism. My concern is that it is difficult to develop inclusionary and exclusionary criteria that would allow the jokes that should be included and disallow those that should not. If we can implement this section well, I'm in favor of it. Croctotheface 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the chart is inaccurate; the Turd Ferguson joke is used to introduce Burt Reynolds and is kept up on his stand throughout the skit. The characterization used on the proposed chart purposefully minimizes the name's use. 141.166.154.204 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Croc here: you can't add "chief" jokes or jokes to this listing without a major overhaul. The only reason I believe Turd Ferguson can and should be added is because this is a list of names: a (joke) assumed name is germane to a list of names. Adding Turd Ferguson doesn't require the addition or subtraction of anything else: this is a small edit we are talking about! Most of you new opinions are all all over-analyzing this: worse than Croc and I! In all likelihood it will have no effect other than making the list slightly more accurate. 141.166.154.204 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Though maybe you could do 'skit profiles' where you provide a detailed description of each skit, jokes included. This is done a lot for TV series where they have section containing a blurb about each episdoe organizaed by season. It would take some effort but it would improve the article. RIVA02906 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If there were some way to implement this sort of thing in a brief fashion, like the chart, without needing to spend a lot of words explaining the jokes and with some method in place to decide between what is and is not worth mentioning, I'd be in favor of it. This would be an actual "compromise" in that we would be finding a different way to go about identifying the sketch, and we would still treat "Turd" as a joke rather than as an alternate identity. Croctotheface 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

141.166 --> Your assertion of inaccuracy is inaccurate! Turd Ferguson was not one of the three contestants on the show in the skit. Burt Renolds was pretending to be someone else. It was the same actual actor with the same make-up and clothes, and the it is the understanding of the other contestants, the host, the live audience and the television audience that the character being portrayed is Burt Reynolds portraying Turd Ferguson. Clarity must be maintained throughout this discussion.

And furthermore, when Sean Connery calls Trebek a name, does that mean that there are now two hosts, because Trebek has a new name? No. It's Trebek with an alias, the same as Reynolds with an alias. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually going to quibble with you a little, in that I don't think that Burt Reynolds portrays Turd Ferguson, he just thinks "it's a funny name". Your example, though, is dead on. "Turd" is more analagous to some Shakespearean namecalling that Connery directs at Trebek . In that context, if another character used Connery's insult in lieu of Trebek's actual name, we would know what was going on. The insulting name, thus, has identifying power. However, it is still for all intents and purposes a joke and should be treated like one. Same with "Turd". Croctotheface 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Croc, is there any reason you deleted all the citation needed's? All correctly marked locations where you asserted something that needed to be cited. And the article is marked as having too few citations.

Now, you haven't deleted most of the other edits I have done for your benefit: correcting typos, correcting grammar, removing passive voice, removing redundant words; but as with the Turd Ferguson issue (and your rejection of any compromise in that issue) you appear to be hostile to nay help. Is there a reason for this? RIVA02906 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, why have you never posted links to videos of the skits? Thats why I came to this wikipedia page in the first place, to get a list of links to all the episodes. I've been distracted since then but I wish to pose the question now: why no lins to videos, Croc? RIVA02906 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Most/all the places you tagged can be sourced to the sketch itself. For instance, there may not exist a secondary source that says that Dean Edwards was in two episodes of the sketch, but we can deduce that from the primary sources we have.

I do sincerely appreciate the positive work you've done here, and despite my having very clear ideas about what's good for the article, I welcome any attempt to improve it. While you have improved the article in places and should be commended for that, your conduct with respect to "Turd Ferguson" is not something to be proud of. Had the editors I invited, by way of posts at WT:WAF and WP:3O, agreed with you and not me, I would've dropped the issue. However, they did not, and you should've either sought more opinions or dropped the issue. Your "compromise", as I've explained several times now, is not much of one. You get the same kind of mention you always wanted in the same place, except now readers will have to click a link before reading it. If it's inappropriate to mention there, it's inappropriate to link from there. I have not accepted your "Turd" related edits because I don't believe they are good for the article, they go against the consensus, and becuase you pledged to edit war (and then kept your pledge) in order to try to cudgel me into not caring about the issue and letting your version stay.

Regarding linking to videos, I wish we could! I am not personally opposed to such links, and I don't think I've removed them in the past. However, Wikipedia policy holds that we should not link to copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. There isn't much that you or I could do about this particular policy. Croctotheface 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

At the start of the article it describes this sketch as re-occurring, and then requests a citation. I don't think it's necessary to cite that this sketch re-occurs. That much is easily observed by anyone who watches SNL. Or by making a quick jaunt over to Youtube. What should be cited instead is the last sentence, "Thirteen sketches have been aired to date, two per season from 1996 to 2002, and one in 2005." if anything. --SquidMoose 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Trebek Actor

At the top of the page it states that Will Ferrel Played Trebek in all 13 skits. It later states in the "End of the Sketch" section that Trebek played himself for a sketch. This is a contradiction. Rekov (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One sketch had two Trebeks. Croctotheface (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Relationship with the real Jeopardy!

I remember an interview with Alex Trebek where he claimed he wants to have Sean Connery participate as a contestant in real life, partially due to the parody. Does anybody have a clip of this? ----DanTD (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't, but if we find a source, we could definitely mention it in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember an episode of the real Jeopardy (I think Ferrell or at least comedians were the category) and the question was along the lines of 'In 2008 this comedian won an emmy for his one man show about his impersonation of George Bush, not moi.' Would that deserve to be mentioned on this page? Tydamann (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be featured

This should be a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.201.8 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)