Talk:Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live)

DVD Release?
Are these ever going to be released on DVD? So far two of them are on DVDs (one on the season's DVD and one on the Will Ferrel Greatest Hits), but is there going to be a DVD with all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming?
Is there going to be a Celebirty Jeopardy! skit on May 16? (Will Ferrell, Green Day) Nhdrumline11 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Trebek as serious
I see that the bit about that was removed, but I'm sure that there are sources out there. The first one I found with some quick Googling is this:, but I'm sure there are others. Help would be appreciated. Croctotheface (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How to interpret "last aired"
It's intersting, FMA, that you interpret "last aired" as "the airing after which there will be no more." I interpret it as "most recently aired." I'm fine with the current formulation, but I don't think "on hiatus" is necessary. Croctotheface (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Four columns
Why do you guys insist on there being four columns for the contestants? I instead favor three, and then Burt Reynolds as a note. And why do you keep undoing my revision? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The table looks better with four columns. (Obviously, that's my opinion, but at least one other editor appears to share it.)  Furthermore, Burt Reynolds is a celebrity character on the show; I don't see a reason he should be treated differently in the table from all other celebrity characters on the show.  That you prefer not to have a column with one entry isn't a sufficient reason in my view.  Also, your version of the table had odd formatting with at least one extra line, and that "notes" column that was about as wide as the rest of the table, at least in my browser.  It just wasn't an improvement in my view.  I appreciate your good faith efforts to improve the article, but it's my view that the article is better in the version I reverted to.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you assert that Burt Reynolds is equal to the other contestants in that sketch? He is NOT mentioned by Trebek at the beginning or end, and Connery says that "he was never there".  He does not belong in the contestant column, especially if it creates a column used only once.   Plus, what is your beef against adding references to the latest episode throughout the article?  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion about the table, but I don't agree. Reynolds has a bunch of lines, and he's more like the other contestants than a footnote.  I really don't see an extra column as a big drawback, especially when the alternative is having a HUGE notes column.  In general, I'm opposed to unnecessarily retelling jokes within the encyclopedia article.  Some jokes will show up to illustrate what we're talking about, but we don't need another example of the category name pun. Croctotheface (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bunch of lines? All he does is tell a couple bad Chinese jokes.  And what's wrong with hella notes, besides you don't like it.  I would note that the notes page would be long even without Reynolds appearing in the footnote.  Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a couple of exchanges with Trebek, he has a podium, and he's more like a contestant than a cameo. As far as "hella notes," I could ask you the same question about four colums: what's wrong with them except that you don't like it?  This is a subjective disagreement, but it's not as if the only way someone is "allowed" to revert you on Wikipedia is if there is some kind of policy that governs the length of notes columns in tables.  So far, you are alone in your opinion here, and there IS a policy called WP:Edit war that says you shouldn't try to get your changes in by brute force reversion.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, you undid some other guy's revision for no reason. And what's the proof that I'm "alone".  And Reynolds is a not a full-blown contestant. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I undid his revision for a good reason; he removed "unreferenced" tags from a section without references. He gave no explanation for why he removed the tags and did not introduce any references to address the issue the tags raise.  You are indeed alone in your position; no other editor has expressed any kind of agreement with you.  Another editor reverted your edit warring back to my version.  And, to respond to your edit summary, edit warring is defined as "the confrontational use of edits to try to win a content dispute."  It is distinct from the three-revert rule, which is what you misquoted in your edit summary.  Again, you don't get to decide for yourself, when two editors disagree with you and no editor agrees with you, that this or that version MUST be used for the article.  If you like, file a request for comment and see if some other eyes come to this issue and agree with you.  What you are doing now, trying to force your changes into the article by reverting despite the fact that nobody else agrees with you, is not the way to do things here.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're arguing that this is just a popularity contest? That is not "the way we do things"  either...think of how political articles would be written.  Just because nobody has said or done anything doesn't make me alone.  By the way, what of my point that the notes are still long even with moving Reynolds to his own column? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What you call "a popularity contest" we call WP:Consensus.  So far, three editors have expressed some desire to put Reynolds in the table, and nobody has said that he should be strictly in the "notes" column except for you.  There is simply no support for your version.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea Time!
Alright, I've been watching this quarrel over the past couple of days, and it makes me want to hurl. From what I've read, I gather the following:
 * *User A wants to relegate Burt Reynolds' appearance in the final (read: last) Celebrity Jeopardy ("CJ") sketch to a note. Reason: he technically wasn't a contestant, but rather a vision only visible to Trebek and the viewing public.
 * *User B is interested in having information in the CJ article displayed so that it is as succinct as possible while maintaining complete accuracy.

Here are my two cents on this whole thing -
 * Burt Reynolds' name should be identified in the second column. The column is listing ALL celebrities impersonated in a given sketch, whether they were on camera for ten minutes or ten seconds, and whether they were contestants or not, as the case may be.
 * A note should be added explaining why there are four celebrities listed, as opposed to the three listed in the preceding 13 sketches. In my humble opinion (to preface), a table should strive to concisely list all the information a reader may find useful in the course of researching a topic. Nobody, including the both of you, have no way of knowing what this info may be. Until a process for error-free mind-reading is developed, the information available should be as near to exhaustive as possible, even if this comes at the expense of appearance.

Additionally: All editors should be careful of justifying edits based on how things appear in their browser. Without explicitly noting what this problem maybe (a screenshot would be good), how are we to know that this problem isn't exclusive to your computer?

Below is my proposal for the table. Comments appreciated, let's refrain from updating the page until we come to consensus here .

Raj Fra 22:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My main issue here is that unless we have a very reliable source saying that Reynolds was an apparition, I think that saying as much would be original research and thereby violate WP:NOR. That's not the impression I had of his appearance; I perceived Connery's comments as an attempted mindfuck of Trebek.  Additionally,and this is not in the Hulu version, but Reynolds returns at the very end of the sketch as well. I'm not comfortable with presenting one interpretation of the Reynolds appearance at the expense of all others, unless there is very strong sourcing to back it up.  However, I would not be opposed to some note in the rightmost column that adds a little more background to the Reynolds appearance.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda confused...are you saying that there really were four contestants? I don't understand your interpretation, and I kinda doubt most of Wikipedia.  By the way, in what version does Reynolds return (link?) at the end...he doesn't return in the version on the NBC site either.  I think it'd be better, saying "this episode has four contestants because MacDonald's Burt Reynolds appears for part of the sketch"--nice and neutral.  By the way, different word than mindfuck? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that there was a fourth celebrity who appeared in a way that strongly resembled a fourth contestant. And besides, as Raj Fra points out, the heading on the table isn't contestants but rather "celebrities impersonated."  Reynolds returns in the end in the version that was aired on NBC.  The web versions are truncated.  I'd be fine with something like your text in the notes field, but I still think we're better off with Reynolds in a column in the table.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If we call it "celebrities impersonated", we'd have to throw in the guy who made a cameo for the Daily Double. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We _do_ call it that, and it's not a change that I made. But we don't need to do anything because of what the header says; we can decide that only X or Y should go in the table.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sean Connory
Has Sean Connory ever expressed how he feels about the sketches anywhere? 72.191.116.59 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
User:Sottolacqua seems to have taken it upon himself to gut the article because he doesn't believe that certain things (like deviations from the norm considering guests and occurences) should be in it. I disagree completely, but I did not want to start an editing war by simply undoing the changes, so what do you all think? Vyselink (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single variation in the sketch does not need to be listed, especially for something that has only appeared 14 times. The Church Lady, The Delicious Dish, Weekend Update, etc. do not go into this level of detail. Additionally, deviations, if they were to be included, do not belong in the Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live) section. That section should include detail about the general flow of the sketch and not include deviations from the normal format.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument that "Church Lady" etc do not go into this level of detail and therefore neither should this one is flawed. Perhaps it is the other way around, and that they should include more information. The only way that I could find informtion pointless or too much would be if it included a line-by-line transcript of each individual show. Vyselink (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First SNL Jeopardy parody
It was "Jeopardy 1999" in 1976 (season 2), with Steve Martin as the quizmaster, everybody wearing Star Trek uniforms and fright wigs, and lots of 1984, Brave New World and post-apocalyptic references... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

SCTV
Do you think it's worth mentioning that the entire premise of the skit, including an Alex Trebek who becomes increasingly irritated with his stupid contestants, was done more than ten years earlier, on SCTV? ("Hi Q" was the name of the skit: Eugene Levy as Alex Trebel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.97.94 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming in long after this question was posted, but no. Everything serves as an inspiration for everything else, and attempting to articulate every possible origin or deviation thereof would be out of scope (plus lead to subjective arguments as to what is or is not a copy, tribute, rip-off, etc. Otherwise, no music article would or could ever be succinct. Crimson667 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some pedantry
In the text, the phrase "Drummers Named 'Ringo'" links to Ringo Starr (and probably justifiably so), however that Jeopardy category isn't exclusive to The Beatles drummer, as Ringo Sheena also plays drums. Mind matrix  15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Right and EVERYONE know who Ringo....er...Sheena is! lol99.185.56.93 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But why does Sean Connery HATE Trebek
Is there actually any basis for this? Yes or no, that needs to be in this article!99.185.56.93 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Music replacements on YouTube
When the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! segments originally aired, they actually used the Jeopardy! theme. But now, possibly because CBS took ownership of King World's game shows, they replaced it with a sound alike theme.

[I wish they'd change copyright laws so this would have been necessary.] Vern4760 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)