Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive 1

Trivia section
Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The show's 3000th episode had the same six categories used from the show's first episode in the first round (LAKES & RIVERS, INVENTIONS, ANIMALS, FOREIGN CUISINE, ACTORS & ROLES, and NUMBER PLEASE). A category of unrevealed questions from the first episode was featured on Double Jeopardy! (which, ironically, were not all revealed in this episode either). The Final Jeopardy! category was HOLIDAYS, which was also the same category used on their first show.
 * Kevin Laude, a one-day champion, had to wait more than four years for his win to air. His win was on the "lost episode" of the show which never aired in its rotation. In Season 18, Laude defeated 4-time champion Ramsey Campbell and Nancy Casbeer in a game which did not air because of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The show was finally aired on GSN in June 2005.
 * The theoretical maximum win for a single day of Jeopardy! is $566,400. However, this requires choosing all of the Daily Doubles last and that they are all placed behind the lowest valued clues, which the odds are 3,288,600 to 1 against (assuming they are randomly placed, which they are not), wagering everything for each Daily Double, and again wagering everything in Final Jeopardy! Depending on placement and order of the Daily Doubles, a so-called "perfect game" (every question correct, always maximum wager when called to do so) can range from $208,000 to $566,400, with a mean of $374,400.
 * The problem with theorhetical maximums is that there is no real way of making a real-world estimate based on state of play. Specifically, there are many (sometimes several times a week) where a judgement is reversed and a player is awarded points based on a  response that was originally deemed incorrect.  This means, that it is possible for two players to receive points from the same right answer. I am not a math doyen but I don't think there is a way of accounting for these occurences. Jackbox1971 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The current one-day record is $75,000, set by Ken Jennings on July 23, 2004.

Would someone please put a sound clip of the "think music" in this article? I don't have the software even to play Wikipedia sound clips, much less to create them. -- isis 08:42 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * Here you go, in MIDI format, which your browser should be able to handle: [[media:jeopardy.mid]]


 * It's probably not exactly like the Jeopardy! theme, since I did it off the top of my head, but it's pretty close. -- Merphant


 * Here you go. All three known versions of the Jeopardy! think music. Version 1 is presumably the version used on the original Art Fleming version of the show. Version 2 is the version I first heard on the Alex Trebek run of Jeopardy!, and Version 3 is the version used today on the show.


 * Can anybody confirm that the name of the "think music" is indeed "A Time For Tony" in terms of anybody having the record/single with the song title "A Time For Tony" and running for about 30 seconds?


 * Sure. You can confirm this fact yourself by picking up either of these two books. The first one, "The Jeopardy! Book" written by Alex Trebek in 1990, and "Inside Jeopardy!" written by former Jeopardy! Editorial Associate Producer Harry Eisenberg in 1995. Both books state this fact.

Does anyone out there have a script for the "Jeopardy 1999" saturday night live sketch? I've been looking for it. (I know the script itself doesn't belong here, but a link to it would be appropriate.)

Here's a link to the transcript Jeopardy 1999

I liked Jerry Seinfeld's "Stand up and win!" Saturday Night Live Jeopardy parody.

Version posted on October 11, 2003:

Jeopardy! All About the Game. The screen starts out black and then fades into an orange, red, and blue back- ground with the big, black word JEOPARDY! appearing in the center, with Johnny Gilbert announcing: "This......is......Jeopardy! Lets meet tonight's contest- ants." The camThere are always 3 contestants at the start of each game. Then, the first contestant appears in a orange, red, and blue box with their name on it. Johnny announces what their occupation is, where they're from, and who they are. He does the same for the next 2 contestants, but, the only difference is when he gets to the champion, he uses the prefix:...."And our returning champ- ion,." From here on, it's the same. After introducing the champion, he announces: "....And now, here is the host of Jeopardy!, Aleeeeeeeex Trebek!" (Alex and no one else appear in a box during the rest of the game.) Then, Alex thanks Johnny and sometimes says a few words about the contestants, then he starts the game. 35 TVs are

YES, the Tournament of Champions has been cancelled. Under the new policy of "you can win as many days as you can win" there are no longer five-day winners to feed the Tournament with and this was all part of the reorganization that included the end of the Tournament of Champions. :) jengod 20:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * NO, the Tournament of Champions has NOT been cancelled. Under the new policy, the Tournament of Champions invites will be determined on the basis of total days on the show. In fact, the next Tournament of Champions has already been taped and is "in the can". --OntarioQuizzer 17:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maximum Theoretical Winnings in One Day?
We began this discussion on Ken Jennings, and I'm seeing discrepancies in this article as well, so I'm bringing it up here. This article lists the daily theoretical maximum as $566,400, but I don't see how that works. Here are my calculations: Is my math wrong? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:04, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * {User runs every category, and the last square chosen is the lowest denomination, which contains the daily double, and everything is wagered}
 * Total after 1st round: (((1000 + 800 + 600 + 400 + 200) * 6) - 200) * 2 = 35600
 * Total after 2nd round: (35600 + ((2000 + 1600 + 1200 + 800 + 400) * 6) - 400) * 2) = 142400
 * Total after Final Jeopardy: 142400 * 2 = 284800


 * First round board: 6 columns of $100, $200, $300, $400, $500 = $1500/column
 * A full board would be $9000, but we subtract $100 for the Daily Double
 * At the end of the first round: $8900 doubled = $17800
 * Second round board: 6 columns of $200, $400, $600, $800, $1000 = $3000/column
 * A full board would be $18,000, but we subtract $400 for the 2 Daily Doubles = $17,600
 * Then take the total of the 1st round and the 2nd round ($17,800 + $17,600 = $35,400) and double it twice for the 2nd round Daily Doubles = $141,600
 * Then double this for Final Jeopardy: $141,600 * 2 = $283,200

Ah, silly me, I was using the old board values. I see they've increased the board values (since 2001). Taking THAT into account...:
 * First round board: 6 columns of $200, $400, $600, $800, $1000 = $3000/column
 * A full board would be $18000, but we subtract $200 for the Daily Double
 * At the end of the first round: $17800 doubled = $35,600.
 * Second round board: 6 columns of $400, $800, $1200, $1600, $2000 = $6000/column
 * A full board would be $36,000, but we subtract $800 for the 2 Daily Doubles = $35,200.
 * Then take the total of the 1st round and the 2nd round ($35,600 + $35,200 = $70,800) and double it twice for the 2nd round Daily Doubles = $283,200
 * Then double this for Final Jeopardy: $283,200 * 2 = $566,400

This matches the figure at Ken Jennings now. -- Nunh-huh 17:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ohh, I forgot there were two daily doubles in dbl jeopardy. Thanks! - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:36, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * (UNSIGNED COMMENT MOVED FROM Ken Jennings)In order for Final Jeopardy to be reached, one other player must have money. Assume the other player answered the lowest possible value question ($200). The theoretical maximum is actually $563,200.


 * Can anyone verify if this is true? Are you sure that you can't enter Final Jeopardy without any opponents? This must have happened once or twice.  I can't imagine that they would skip final jeopardy, because then they would have a gap of several minutes in their broadcast. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:40, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I was just wondering about this last night... Can anyone remember seeing that actually happening, that two contestants are in the red at the end of Double Jeopardy? Does the show just end then? Postdlf 18:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Final Jeopardy! *does* still take place if two players are in the red after Double Jeopardy! -- the one player plays Final by himself. It's happened twice in the 20-season Trebek era. --OntarioQuizzer 23:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * i don't think that comment is true; i think the person was just assuming. if only 1 person has money at the end of double jeopardy it's pretty obvious who the winner will be, but that person i would think would still have the chance to increase their winnings. nothing seems to indicate otherwise. whether this has ever happened i can't be sure, though it was pretty close once last week. regardless i think that persons math is wrong. if another player answered a $400 question as the final question of the game, the maximum for the other player would actually work out more (after that $200 had been doubled 3 times), $565,600, i think-R. fiend 18:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether the $200 is missed in the first round or the $400 is missed in Double Jeopardy. The maximum is $563,200 either way. Here's why: The maximum has already been calculated above to be $566,400. Except that doesn't leave any opponents. If you miss the $200 question in Jeopardy, you actually miss out on $200*2*2*2*2 = $3,200. If you miss the $400 in Double Jeopardy, you miss out on $400*2*2*2 = $3,200. Subtracting $3,200 from $566,400 leaves $563,200.


 * Anonymous user is correct here, however, we have still not settled the original case of whether or not an individual player can advance to Final Jeopardy by himself. Unless Ken Jennings steps it up a notch, we may not find out the answer to this any time soon.  Should we possibly list both as speculations? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:52, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Until we clarify whether two players are needed for Double Jeopardy, it might be better to specify the maximum theoretical earnings for one day as something round, like "more than half a million dollars" or "more than $550,000" ? - Nunh-huh 20:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I would think that one person could proceed to Final Jeopardy; otherwise he's being penalized by losing a chance to as much as double his winnings just because both of his competitors really sucked. Of course, I would also think that they'd have the rules on the official Jeopardy website so we could check these things, but nope. Something that's interesting&mdash;the original run of the show had the same rules as the current syndicated version, and on a couple occasions, all three contestants were ineligible for Final Jeopardy (according to TV Tome, at least).   Postdlf 20:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * after redoing all the math longhand i guess anonymous is right about the totals being the same (sometimes i wish a had a caluculator), but i still think only 1 person is needed to participate in final jeopardy, unless someone can verify a rule that states otherwise. also, these totals assume that all the daily doubles are in the first row of questions, which i don't think is ever the case (has anyone seen a daily double above the second row? i haven't), but i guess if the rules dont specifically say it can't be then its no more unlikely than a single person getting every question correct and risking it all 4 separate times. this is all theoretical. also, is jengod right in saying there is no more tournament of champions? seems stupid of them to get rid of it just because they got rid of the 5 time champion rule (they're already theoretically saving money by not giving away cars). the tournamnet was never restricted to 5 time champs anyway. i mentioned on the ken jennings page that he would certainly return for the tournament, but if there isnt one then i guess that should be deleted. pity. -R. fiend 03:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even if it's necessary to have two contestants with positive scores in order to have Final Jeopardy!, that doesn't mean the theoretical maximum has to be reduced. We merely have to assume one of the loser candidates gets a correct response that is initially ruled incorrect, and then the big winner gives the response the judges are looking for. The big winner would still get every question correct, but one of the losers would have a positive score, too. This kind of score correcting happens frequently on the show--certainly more often than getting all three Daily Doubles in the top row. Jwolfe 07:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this assessment. If no one has any objections, I'm going to update the theoretical max on this page and on Ken Jennings to $566,400.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:24, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, in that case the money would go to the contestant who answer the question correctly initially and would be deducted from the one who answered it afterward.


 * Acegikmo1 16:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have seen cases in which they have asked ambiguous questions, and the first answer that they rejected was later deemed to be acceptable as well. Rather than penalize the second player, they award both players the dollar amount. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:11, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have seen cases where a contestant gave a reponse that they ruled incorrect and a second contestant gave a similar response that they also ruled incorrect. After the judges reviewed it and changed their minds, they gave credit to both contestants for a correct answer. Jwolfe 11:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category displays?
Here's something I was curious about. Whenever Alex goes down the line showing the contestants the categories, they have a special way of making the categories appear on the screen. I know there's been lots of different ones, but I don't them all. Here's some that I know of:


 * The title is already visible, but written on a dark screen. The monitor lights up to make the title more prominent.
 * The words on the screen are broken into little pieces. The pieces come together to reveal the category name.
 * The screen is blank. Down from the top comes the category title, written in a light font. At the same time, the same title comes up from the bottom, also written in light font. The two titles combine to make a single, full-fledged title.
 * The Jeopardy! logo is visible on the screen. It rolls upward to reveal the title.
 * Rock 'n' Roll Jeopardy! - A CD rolls acoss the screen, the title appearing out from under it as it goes.

Does anyone know of any others?


 * Yes. I am currently watching it on GSN and the categories are appearing on the screen by:
 * The Jeopardy! logo is visible on the screen. It fades out while the category fades in to reveal the title.


 * BTW, is this something we want to put in the actual article page?

Alex?
Anyone else find it slightly odd that there's a picture of Ken Jennings on this page but not Alex Trebek? -R. fiend 17:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * He who makes the screencaps makes the news... There are plenty of pictures of Alex on the net, but their copyright status is questionable. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:24, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Perfect game
"If you decide ahead of time that your strategy is to go for a perfect game, your chances become much better. In trying for a perfect game, you will not select the low questions ($200/$400) until the end of each round. In Single Jeopardy, there is a 1:5 chance of the board being set up correctly, and you have a 1:6 chance of choosing the Daily Double Last, giving you a 1:30 chance of maxing Single Jeopardy. In Double Jeopardy, there is a 1:29 chance of the board being set up right, and a 1:15 chance of choosing the daily doubles last. So, if you decide ahead of time to try for a perfect game, and manage to get all the questions, then you have a 1:13050 chance."

I have to take issue with some of the phrasing in the above paragraph. The board being set up "correctly" implies that there is something "incorrect" about having daily doubles below the first row, when, in reality, they ALWAYS are. As this isn't the rule but is always the case it shouldn't affect the theoretical maximum, but I think with these mathmatical statistics people are forgetting the fact that the theoretical maximum is just that. No one will ever win 566 whatever thousand dollars on jeopardy, and no one will ever "try" for a perfect game. It's well beyond anyone's control. The calculations suppose the placings of daily doubles are random when they obviously aren't. If someone is positive they will get every clue correct and wants only to make as much as possible in one game they will certainly pick the higher values last, because they want the daily doubles to be the final clues, and they're usually in the bottom 2 rows. So the 1:30 chance of maxing Single Jeopardy has no bearing. And of course this discounts the probability of a contestant getting every clue right, which is, of course, impossible to calculate. I applaud the mathmatics used in reaching these numbers, but in practice they are, frankly, meaningless within the scope of the game. -R. fiend 01:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Trivia section (Jeopardy version in Canada?)
I was just wondering if anyone had any substantiated proof of there being a Canadian version of Jeopardy -- I'm assuming that it would have been a French-language Quebec version, seeing as our English-speaking countrymen compete in the big American show. --OntarioQuizzer 12:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There never was. The international tourney was supposed to stop there after the second winner of that championship was Canadian, but they stayed in the USA for the third championship. There was a short-run of Millionaire in Canada, and Alex has hosted about three Canadian game shows. --  user:zanimum

Vote on Removing a Link
I figured I'd put this up for a vote, since it's always a touchy subject to remove a link to someone's personal website.

Of the External Links area of the page, the link [http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/gsflubs Funny Jeopardy! Answers] is, for one thing, mislabeled, in that it's a site that supposedly hosts Game Show flubs from multiple shows, not just Jeopardy!. Also, if you click the links for "United States flubs" and "United Kingdom flubs", both return a 404 error. Basically, there's no real content to be found, and according to the timestamp at the top of the page, it hasn't been updated in over 6 weeks.

The vote is to remove the links until such a time that the site owner either fixes the 404 error, or adds content to the page. Please type your name with 4 tildes (~) under either "For" or "Against" to vote, and add a comment next to it if you like.

Sincerely,

Ral315 03:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For removal --OntarioQuizzer 01:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Against removal FranklinCougar89 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC): The web address has changed. It's better to update the link, not remove it (especially since I know the new address: it is http://www.sgsa.robertsearcy.info/). Also, the timestamp on the new address at this time says December 26, 2005, which hasn't been six weeks yet.

EDIT: Wa-a-a-a-a-ay too late (about a full year!). But it DOES have a new web address. The new address will be put on the article.

Inconsistency on Triple Losers
There is an inconsistency on this page, not sure which is correct.

"There have been rare instances where there have been two contestants who have finished in either zero or negative scoring in one show, but never all three contestants."

then later:

"If no contestant finishes with a positive total (i.e., at least $1), then nobody wins and three new contestants appear on the following show; in such cases the three players will participate in a backstage draw to determine player position. The three-way loss has happened three times since 1984."

The second phrasing seems correct since it contains more specific information, but I'm loathe to delete since i have no idea. Scarykitty


 * I've looked at it and have made the necessary adjustments. Thanks for the heads-up. --OntarioQuizzer 01:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taking this discussion a little bit farther, I have rephrased the above comment (about one or two contestants finishing "Final Jeopardy!" with $0 or with a negative score), and it still needs a little work. However, I have clarified the comment "but never all three contestants." This is certainly true (and verifiable, I think) for the current syndicated version. For now, I'm considering it "unknown" whether three contestants finished Double Jeopardy! with $0 or negative scores on the 1964 NBC version starring Art Fleming. I thought I had read in Maxine Fabe's "TV Game Shows" book once where she says, "More than once, this was the case for all three contestants" (that is, all three were disqualified from playing Final Jeopardy! because they did so poorly). That said, I wonder what does happen if all three contestants finish "Double Jeopardy!" with minus scores, aside from the obvious (three new contestants on the next show)? How do they fill the remaining time that would have been used to play "Final Jeopardy!"? Briguy52748 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]]

The inconsistency is still in the article. Chuck 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Current TV status
How frequently are new episodes of Jeopardy! made, and on what channels do they air? --LostLeviathan 19:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jeopardy! tapes 230 episodes per year, over 46 days taped between (generally) July and March. The show, being syndicated, shows on many different channels - a list can be found at . --OntarioQuizzer 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the best way to note this in the article, but I feel that since David Madden, the current champion, has had impressive runaway wins like Ken Jennings, and Alex has commented on this, and he has won six times, he should be included. If anyone feels that the format of my contribution is questionable, feel free to correct it.  I currently put a link to my stub on him under the "see also" section. -- asert 00:42 Jul 12, 2004


 * A single five time winner (or is it 6 now)? Nah. There are tons of 5 timers, and quite a few 6ers since they changed the rules recently. If he gets around 15 or 20 then he's considerably above the others, but as of now he's just another dweeb who's pretty good at a quiz show. -R. fiend 01:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. VFD process begun. --OntarioQuizzer 03:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Link to Double jeopardy
Edcolins removed a link to Double jeopardy. I reinstated it, because I believe that users may want to know where the term comes from. If you have an opinion either way on this, please post here. ral 315  16:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Two Timpani strikes -- source?
"A few years after composing the song, Griffin added 2 timpani notes at the end so that it would meet the 30-second minimum length required to secure a copyright on the song."

Can someone provide a verifiable source for this claim? I don't know of any provision in copyright law that sets a minimum duration for a composition. (Indeed, had the song been performed at a slightly slower tempo, it would have been thirty seconds long!)

It may be the case that there's a minimum length require to copyright the recorded performance of the song (and even this I'm skeptical of), but the copyright of a sound recording is separate from the copyright of the composed work.

Heath 66.32.1.24 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll put this here since it's about sourcing and the theme song. The information regarding the royalty money made by Griffin on the theme came from an interview he did on the entertainment TV show The Insider aired in syndication but seen by this editor 10 minutes before the edit. Pretty impressive stuff, but I didn't think it was worth its own discussion line in this page. Moof 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since five months have passed, and no one has provided a credible source for the two-timpani-strikes claim, I've removed it from the main article. Moof, I've left your comment on the royalties in the article -- someone else has added a template seeking a source for it. -- Heath 68.191.7.126 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Add Up
The article has under the Tournament of Champions
 * Finals


 * Monday, 13 May: Rutter $11,000, Newhouse $0, Verini $6,800
 * Tuesday, 14 May: Rutter $13,801, Newhouse $25,600, Verini $800


 * Totals: Rutter $25,601; Newhouse $25,600; and Verini $7,600. Rutter wins the Million Dollar Masters Touranment and the $1 million grand prize.

My question is: how do 11,000 and 13,801 added equal 25,601? Could somebody check these numbers, preferably from the original source?

Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * says that Rutter had $11,800. --Andy Saunders 04:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Auditions
I noticed that the format for "Back to School Week"/"Kids' Week" auditions says that a mock game is played first, followed by the 30 question exam. When I tried out for "Back to School Week" in 2000, this was not true - the reverse was. However, I understand that times change, and so do "Jeopardy!" try-outs. Can anyone please verify the manner currently listed? Thanks!


 * While I have not personally tried out for Kids Week, users on the Jeopardy! message boards whose kids have tried out have said that recently they play the mock game first; that way, all of the kids selected to try out get a chance to play with the buzzers (meaning, the kids leave having gotten to play Jeopardy!, whether they pass the test or not - which makes them happier than if they didn't pass the test and didn't get the chance to play).

Added info on HOW to audition when the address to the studio mentioned could not be found. If someone would post that as well (or a link) that would be great.


 * I removed the info of which the poster supra writes, inasmuch as it was written in the second-person and in any case was perhaps more instructional than encyclopedic; after all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (under which category falls the proscription "...Wikipedia articles should not include instruction"). Joe 22:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could not the person have been changed to comply with format? I further submit that the header of that section implies that particular info will be found there.  The "how" is GERMAINE to the article, indeed central to that section...  Indiscriminate? :^/

The contestants I competed with in the 2001 College Tournament, including one in the same tryout session as I was, came to the conclusion that the mock game groupings were made from test scores in reverse order (lowest pass to highest). All of us (that we could recall) were in the last group in our room. Mind you, this tryout was for the College Tournament, so there were only 15 slots available, so this could differ from the normal auditions. Mschnippert 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting conclusion, that. Andy Saund e rs 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When I tried out for Kids Week in June 2003, the test came before the mock game, so any change must have been quite recent. --Metsfan001 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I tried out for Kids Week (as i was coincidentally on the same week as Metsfan001, even though i tried out in 2004) the mock game was before the 30-answer test.

Form of a question
About the "What is?" being strictly enforced: I distinctly remember a contestant answering in more unconventional ways. Among others, he answered, "Who?" to a question about the who and, "(someone's name), what's that?" Both were accepted, though Alex commented on the multiple-day winner's cockiness. Anyone else remember this guy? Also, I'd like to see some mention of the fact that the "answers" are nothing like the answer you'd give to their question if the question was asked of you. For example, say a kid asks his father, "Who's Abraham Lincoln?" and the father answers, "Well, this president grew a beard because a girl told him it would make his face look better." Of course, if they used more realistic answers, it wouldn't work. Compare:
 * It's the year that the Model T was invented.
 * What is 1903?

to:
 * 1903
 * What's a number that's almost 2000?

That would technically be correct, but it wouldn't be what the producers intended. Ken Jennings's famous "What's a hoe?" answer illustrates producer intent as well. Hoe (ho) was an acceptable answer, but it wasn't what they intended the answer to be. Anyway, back to the original thing I said. CrossEyed7 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Rakes are purely pleasure seekers, while most hoes are (for lack of a better word) slaves to either pimps or a fruitless search for love, not pleasure.

In a recent episode (I don't recall if it was a GSN repeat or new episode), a contestant forgot to answer in the form of a question for a Daily Double. Alex gave it to her anyway, citing that "we don't penalize for that in the first round." However, after the commercial break, they nullified the score, because the rule doesn't apply to the Daily Double. Can anyone else confirm this? Mshake3 00:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd probably get more of a response if you asked your question here (on the Jeopardy! message boards). Andy Saunders 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I'm going to start a "Categories" section. Three usual topics are given in the very first intro paragraph, but I think that much more can be said about usual categories. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please let me know. --Eric Jack Nash 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So I just did the above. I took part of a paragraph in the "Game Play" section.  If someone else thinks it is appropriate to modify either so that there isn't repetition, be my guest.  --Eric Jack Nash 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good idea. Twelve categories per day for 22 years = a list that could get out of hand in a hurry. Lambertman 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not suggesting listing every category, just common categories, like one I just saw while watching the show - "Crossword Clues". Is that OK?  --Eric Jack Nash 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cast and crew
I think listing the complete crew in this article is providing too much detail. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this section is seriously making the article much longer than it needs to be. Linking to a site where the complete crew is listed would be fine, but I don't think that including it is a good idea. --Joann e B 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Set
As are the home decorating show-esque descriptions of each set ever used. Save it for a fan site. --Goldrushcavi 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the assertion that the descriptions of each set Jeopardy! has been used should be saved for a fan site. Nearly every other game show-related Wikipedia entry has similar remarks concerning the sets (and the evolution of such sets) of other game shows. The Jokers Wild, Family Feud, Bullseye to name a few are excellent examples. As such, I believe that "Sets" should be brought back to the Jeopardy! entry on Wikipedia. Such claims that it "does not" belong there are utterly ridiculous.  --User:Srosenow_98 19:21, 17 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Then can we give it its own page? The article itself is over 60K long. --Goldrushcavi 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contestants given a broad idea of the categories?
Someone told me that before contestants come on the show, they are given a broad selection of categories by the producers to help them study for the show.

Can anyone confirm/deny this?


 * It's not true.--Mathew5000 09:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. We got no suggestion of anything to study. Mschnippert 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely false. Andy Saund e rs 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The closest I can think of is that they cover "Before and After", the use of quotation marks in Category titles, and I think one other quirk which isn't obvious to the casual viewer. They do this for all potential contestants who have passed the test, so there's no indication that any of those will actually appear on the show at any given time. -R. fiend 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Culture References?
I see there's only a short blurb on pop culture...is there going to be a list at any point (or has there been one that is now deleted)? I was hoping to see (or add) the Pinky and the Brain one, in which the Brain loses Final Jeopardy because he has failed to pay attention to Pinky the entire episode (and thus failed to remember the line Pinky has been repeating the entire episode: "Pow, bang, right in the kisser!" and the person Pinky attributes this line to). Kilyle 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're in luck... it has been given its own article. --Goldrushcavi 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving sections
I have begun moving some of the larger sections over to their own articles, beginning with the set and the audition procedures. The article is still over 47K long and could use some more cleanup work... --Goldrushcavi 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stable versioning tested on this article.
Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on Jeopardy!/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regis a frequent Jeopardy! contestant?
I removed the line about Regis Philbin being a frequent guest on Celebrity Jeopardy! I saw a recent interview with WABC-TV in which Alex Trebek said that Philbin will be appearing on Celebrity Jeopardy! for the third time this fall. If 3 appearances are "frequent," I must be wrong. Tinlinkin 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the context of the show, 3 is frequent, IMO. Andy Saund e rs 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the more frequent guests? The most frequent guest?  I don't know.  Ral315 (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the October 4, 2006 Live with Regis and Kelly show, Trebek said that Philblin is "the only celebrity we would have had as a contestant on the program three times." So he would be the celebrity that has appeared the most, and I'm now convinced of that. I wonder if his luck with the buzzer will change this time, :) Tinlinkin 06:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Craig Westphal for deletion
I nominated the article Craig Westphal, a recent winner on Jeopardy!, for deletion on Articles for deletion/Craig Westphal a few days ago. It is currently orphaned within the Wikipedia article namespace. Please go to the AfD page to share your comments. Thanks. Tinlinkin 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merchandising Section
I have posted a free Jeopardy program that is great for teachers (Build Your Own Jeopardy), but it has been removed repeatedly. This program is great tool for teachers and not for any profit! Why then has it been deleted? There are other software programs and hardware related to Jeopardy! that remain on this page, but they are not removed. They are all commercial products and for profit. They are not adding to this type of community work(Wikipedia), but they all remain posted. I see no reason why Build Your Own Jeopardy should be removed. User:Dougwolfejr
 * Simple; it's not officially licenced by the show (or a resource relating to the show itself)...therefore, I see no reason for it to be on the page. Andy Saund e rs 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This section's purpose is to document officially licensed, commercially-produced Jeopardy! merchandise. The Links section is for links that relate directly to the show.  "Build Your Own Jeopardy" falls into neither category, and so has no place on this Wikipedia page.  Also, please place new talk messages at the bottom of the Talk page, and don't forget to sign your comments. Robert K S 01:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then make a new section. This does not seem in the spirit of the GFDL.   You are marketing certain commercial products, but not allowing users to find information on other products that may be of use to them.  Look up Jeopardy! on google and more than one of the top ten links is for educationally available materials.  Why not make an educational section or something similar?Dougwolfejr 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For one, it does not appear to fit under the WP:EL criteria for external links. Preferred external links are to databases of information regarding the subject, or the subject's official pages.  Also, links that you own should not be posted, even if they meet the guidelines to be included.  In that case, posting on the talk page of the article and seeing if someone else agrees to post it (via consensus) is the way to go. Wyv 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What about adding an educational section? There is at least one link I would make to a powerpoint and information related to a powerpoint jeopardy that thousands of teachers who use wikipedia would find helpful.  Although, I think the powerpoint isn't very good that is why I made the software.  I think it would be a useful section for all the educators who use this site.24.91.212.69 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Two pilot versions of well-known 1984 incarnation
I went to Page O'Clips, and I saw two versions of 1984 incarnation's pilot. One was with the set that reincarnated the 1964 & 1978 set and different theme, and the other was with the theme and set we know today but in different colors and music arrangement. If you don't believe me, click there before it disappears within a few months. --Gh87 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding verylong into top of the article
I added that template because I saw the size and felt that because sections of several well-known versions, like the 1984 syndicated one hosted by Alex Trebek, are getting too long. Either they must be trimmed down or they must have their own spinoff. --Gh87 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Everyone who edits this article is aware that it is beyond the recommended size.  There are no fewer than 13 dedicated sub-articles already, and no section is currently especially expendable or spin-off-able.  Moreover, the actual trend of the article in recent days has been reduction rather than increase in size.  Rather than adding a verylong tag, which increases the article's apparent size, be bold and try to spin-off some sections in some way that makes sense to you.  Deletion of material, however, will create more problems than it solves, as the article is already considerably evolved specifically to address special cases and oddities in the rules, alternate versions of the show, etc. Robert K S 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag is not just for regular users it's for categorizing it for potential editors who regularly do that sort of editing of articles and trimming. Quadzilla99 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Compromise: Moved too long tag onto talk page which should serve to categorize it somewhat for other editors. Quadzilla99 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of contestant lists to tables
I've finished converting all the lists of contestants at Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions, Jeopardy! College Championship, Jeopardy! Teen Tournament, and Celebrity Jeopardy!. My choices of colors in the lists were arbitrary, but I feel blue is an appropriate color for the Jeopardy! motif, and it is used to connect the articles (e.g. "Alex Trebek Era"). I hope the conversion to tables doesn't preclude other users in editing the lists. But more importantly, I hope the conversion is helpful for viewing each article. The previous format looked too cumbersome and primitive for me. Tinlinkin 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Looks much better.  (The colors might be tweaked further for readability.) Robert K S 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this article need its own spinoffs?
I wanted to add split-apart because there were a couple of well-known versions, and some sections get a lot of more attention than others. But I need some approval. What do you think? --Gh87 09:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you want to split references to the Fleming version to their own article? While I think it's a good idea, I think so for different reasons, and I do not believe it will appreciably shorten the article. Robert K S 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's official: the template is added. --Gh87 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contestant Intro
At what time during the "Sushi Bar" set did the opening change from the contestants walking on the stage behind their podiums? --Æ AUSSIE evil Æ 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Jeopardy! contestants
How do we go about setting a standard to determine which Jeopardy! contestants can have their own articles and which should not? I don't know where the cut-off for notability should be. I'm bringing this up because Jeopardy! contestants have come up for AfD before, and another contestant, Vik Vaz, is now up for AfD. Tinlinkin 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't conceive of a quantitative cut-off that doesn't rely on some arbitrary metric (number of games won, total dollars accumulated, etc.). Certainly new record-setters are good candidates.  ToC winners are, too, but not every ToC winner qualifies.  Ultimately the question must be whether the contestant qualifies as someone of general notability beyond the show, or of surpassing notability within the show.  Rather than search for some sort of a cutoff, better to let the AfD process take its course. Robert K S 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, the cutoff has been "have they broken a major record within the show, or have people in the general media taken to discussing and covering the run of the contestant?" I've put Nico Martinez up for AfD becuase I do not feel he meets the notability criteria of the show. Andy Saund e rs 16:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that the Vik Vaz AfD has been closed, I would agree that he is non-notable, and I would have ultimately voted to delete.


 * I should have expressed that we can't stop the creation of new articles about Jeopardy! contestants (by fans? vanity pushers?), but we can delete them per notable bio guidelines. These articles create a whack-a-mole effort that I'm not happy with, but have to live with. I agree that total winnings or tournament placement is not sufficient for a sustainable Jeopardy! contestant bio, and a cutoff, per se, should not be established. Record holders and well-publicized winners would be notable, but only in (per Jayron32's words in the Vik Vaz AfD) "NONTRIVIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, and RELIABLE sources." I don't believe that Ken Jennings is the only notable contestant, as implied by some in the AfD, but I hate to think Ken Jennings should be the only standard to compare notability with.


 * I guess another reason why Jeopardy! contestants may be (or tend to be) more notable than contestants from other game shows is because in this show, intellect and knowledge of a broad range of subjects is rewarded whereas in other game shows, winning is largely by chance. Bios of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top-prize winners also suffer from borderline WP:BIO notability, and as that series continues on, million-dollar winners will likely be less publicized (at least in the US media) than in the past. Sorry to introduce another game show into this topic, but I feel it's highly related. Tinlinkin 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex's departure as producer
I noticed a recent edit changed a part about Alex leaving as Jeopardy!'s producer from halfway through Season 3 to the end of Season 3. I did some fact checking and, according to the Eisenberg book, that is correct--Alex's last shows as producer were a Seniors Tournament taped at the end of Season 3. Robert K S 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks
None of the Quotation marks that you think belong actually go there. None. If you see the article on the subject linked to above, never is it given that giving examples of question words (What, who, etc.) should have marks. Only direct quotations should have quotation marks, so in the case of giving examples of questions from different categories, they do not belong because Jeopardy! has never actually used those questions, and are therefore not quoted from the source. For CROSSWORD CLUES M, an individual letter does not use the marks. It is to avoid confusion, you say? Without quotation marks, nothing is confusing me. Perhaps you actually wanted them to be in italics, as two apostrophes and quotation marks look very similar sometimes. On account of your userpage, this is a wiki, and it is perfectly okay to make simple spelling and punctuation corrections to it, as long as one isn't vandalizing or making major changes. Also the "high" that you used on my talk page is also wrong. That usage is now quite common and not considered to be extremely slangish anymore. Now please read the article and learn how to use quotation marks correctly. I am sorry if I have sounded rude to you. Reywas92 Talk 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how eliminating quotation marks would not cause confusion. The quotations are meant to convey what a contestant says or what appears on screen. If it is a matter of adding a source or reference for what was said, that could be done, but is it that necessary to have references for the purpose of justifying the use of quotation marks? Regarding CROSSWORD CLUES "M", the category is stylized that way because it is an extension of the "'quotation mark' categories" and responses must start with the letter M. Surely you remember from watching Jeopardy! how the show uses quotation marks. Tinlinkin 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * About M, I had mentioned it in an edit summary, but forgot to here. The marks around it there can stay because that is how the show uses them.  For examples of questions, they are only examples, and were never actually used in show and therefore shouldn't have quote marks.  A reference would be impossible.  Even if that is what a contestant or the screen may say, it is not a direct quotation of something and must go.  Reywas92 Talk 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This boils down to a disagreement over the proper usage of quotation marks. Reywas92's position, as I understand it, is that quotation marks are only properly used when they actually quote someone or something.  That someone or something, Reywas92 believes, cannot be a hypothetical someone or something; he, she, or it must have been an actually speaking, actually writing something or something.  This is neither the spirit nor the letter of the law.  Reywas92 refers to quotation mark to lend support for his point, but the article does not actually bolster his perspective.  It simply says that quotation marks are "used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, or a phrase."  There's no reason for this to be an edit war; both perspectives should be satisfied to put the matter to a vote. Robert K S 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, what you are quoting is a very loose summary of q-marks used at the top of the page. Read the Usage section, not just the first sentence. You can't just put q-marks around any phrase you want, there are rules to it. Also you had again reverted my edits, furthering the war. I believe, as this is only a lowly talk page, not AfD or RfA, that we cannot put this to a vote with many people. We must come to a mutual agreement. If you think that they reduce confusion, then 1) that is incorrect usage, and 2) they just create more clutter in my opinion. I have already agreed that "M" can stay. As said above, (What, Who, etc.) part is only giving examples and needs none, perhaps they should have been for italics. I still haven't really heard your arguement on why they should stay. Reywas92 Talk 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that you are declining to oppose me, I will guess it is because you don't have a good comeback. I am removing most of them. Reywas92 Talk 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


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

I like it. I didn't think of that before. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks redux
Per the discussion above and recent new edits to this and other Jeopardy!-related articles, it seems that it is Reywas's belief that the proper use of quotation marks is limited to quotations. This is simply an overly strict interpretation of the quotation mark use. As an experiment, I tried typing "quotation marks may be used to" into Google (quotation marks included, so that I would search only on that exact phrase), and received hits on a number of manuals of style. They included the following recommendations: Most of these references give examples. I kindly ask Reywas to read them and reconsider his insistence on deleting sensibly-employed quotation marks willy-nilly. Robert K S 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "...quotation marks may be used to indicate an informal name..." (This is the case with "Spyder" in the Jeopardy! Teen Tournament article. "Sypder" is not part of the car's formal name, and the vehicle in question was not actually a Spyder, but it was advertised as such by Johnny Gilbert among others.)
 * "Quotation marks may be used to introduce unfamiliar or technical terms when they are defined or used for the first time..."
 * "Quotation marks may be used to set off words used as words..." (This is formally known as use-mention distinction, and is the use in the case of the "Who", "What", etc. in this article that Reywas seems to oppose.)
 * "quotation marks may be used to indicate a term used in an ironic sense, as slang, or as an invented expression..." (See, for example, the latest This Modern World cartoon, in which the author deridingly refers to the cable network as "Fox 'News'".
 * "quotation marks may be used to signify a special term or word, to introduce unfamiliar concepts or to indicate a word or phrase that is used in other than its literal sense (e.g., slang or a word used ironically)" (repetitions of above recommendations)
 * "Quotation marks may be used to enclose words used in a special sense."


 * I understand the "words used as words" part, but IMHO, they shouldn't really be used unless in the actual sentence. As a part of a sentence, use-mention would be used to prevent possible ambiguity, and they would stay.  In parentheses, not in the sentence, we know that "What" and "Who" (see it here) are example words, and must be used as words, and there is no ambiguity.  On Spyder, I believe it should say "...a 2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS Spyder (convertable).", as Spyder is a part of the car's name, as on the Eclipse article.  Reywas92 TalkSigs 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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

I accept use-mention. As used in "once waved "hi" to me", "hi" is definately not used as a word. One can say the word "hi", but you cannot wave a word, of course. We both find this lame, how about we settle it by using italics, like used in the use-mention article. Reywas92 TalkSigs 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I'm going to correct it if you don't respond. Reywas92 TalkSigs 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


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

Split tag
I believe this should be deleted. It says above only to move the Fleming part out, but that was in October. Reywas92 Talk 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Men are better at Jeopardy!
Of course you will always find that isolated case of a women beating two guys, but on average you always see the women getting wiped out. This tidbit should be put in the main article. Everyone knows it's true. --72.202.129.98 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This message seems to be flame baiting, but in actuality gender differences in Jeopardy! performance is a real, though little-explored, area of scholarship. See, for example, Domain-specific intellectual success on "Jeopardy", Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Feb, 1998  by Sheila Brownlow,  Rebecca Whitener,  Janet M. Rupert. This is not to say I believe such scholarship is necessarily relevant to the Jeopardy! Wikipedia article. Robert K S 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can study it first if it is up for debate. But everytime I turn on that show, and a female is on there, she is always getting wiped out, or one of the males have a runaway lead.  Not to say female intelligence or mental capacity/IQ or mental potential is any less, it is simply an observation that perhaps needs looking into.  --72.202.129.98 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Women have won Teen Tournaments, College Championships, Tournaments of Champions, and the International Championship. There have been numerous female 5-time champions. Robert K S 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, whoever uses IP address. who cares who's better and who's worse! We don't allow anymore POV edits in this article, but we can discuss our own views here in this talk page. However, if you want to talk which gender is more "intelligent" than the other in Jeopardy! and other game programs, let's do that anywhere other than Wikipedia. --Gh87 09:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you know now that I think about it, it may be perhaps that more men are on the show versus the number of women. Usually if there are 2 men and 1 women, the chances favor the males.  But I tell you what, if someone has statistics (or know where they can be found) on every show with the number of male and female contestants, I'd be willing to do the legwork and crunch the numbers to verify or disprove.  This way there won't be people complaining about POV.
 * Secondly, let me put some people in their place.


 * Robert K S: Ken Jennings.  Owned.
 * Gh87: I suppose you did not read my second reply, or else you would have seen that I have commented that I do not believe females have a lower mental capacity compared to males. I see a trend in Jeopardy! that I would like to look further into.  Maybe you should read next time.  Owned.


 * --72.202.129.98 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its trollishness aside, the "Ken Jennings" remark is cryptic to me. Ken defeated, by my count, 67 women and 81 men, and was defeated by a woman.  Neither statistic shows that men have greater capacity for success on Jeopardy!, only that one particular man was good against both men and women, except against one particular woman in one particular game. Robert K S 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

International versions
there was a mexican version of jeopardy! once, like 5 years ago


 * And, as of 2007, there is a version of the show running in Finland.83.245.225.189 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been running in Sweden since 1991 and is (or used to be) one of the most popular TV sows in the country. This article is quite US centric - there should be an article about the general concept and then spin-off articles about versions in various countries.--Bonadea 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. I wonder how the general concept can be separated from the Trebek version of the show, though, given that the history leads up to the Trebek version (there were no international versions before Trebek) and the rules stem from the Trebek version (i.e. any variations in rules for the international versions are variations of the U.S. rules).  That is to say, how could the show's rules be described in a general article if they differ, however minutely, in international spin-off versions?  And how could the broadcast histories of the international versions be described in their individual articles without ultimately referring back to the Trebek version? Robert K S 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

International Championship
I found Jeopardy! International Championship. It should probably be integrated into the main article. I loved Per Gunnar's response to "if you stick out your shita..." Tinlinkin 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good find. Needs some work to conform it with the other tournament articles. Robert K S 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What is the most a person can win in 1 show
if the person answers all questions correct and dailly doubles are one of least amounts and are last questions i got this 844800 but dont if its right or if i use right numbers


 * It in in the article at Jeopardy!. Reywas92 TalkSigs 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Debt
If a player is in debt at the end of a round, they are automatically eliminated from the round. Do they have to pay it back? 67.188.172.165 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only on The Simpsons. Robert K S 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, I saw that episode. Good one, no they don't. Quadzilla99 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation
You know what would be good for this article, one of those short little audio clips that are used for name pronunciation except used for a short synthesized version of the theme song considering how well-known it has become. It could go in the theme song section obviously. Quadzilla99 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that could be considered fair use, irrespective of clip length. Robert K S 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you did a home made version on a keyboard or something? Quadzilla99 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you sang it off-key. Robert K S 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Luckily for us you're wrong Robert: I'll set about finding us a clip. Quadzilla99 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, boss, as long as it's limited to the first six notes or so. "Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples may not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter."  Robert K S 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tone down the sarcasm "Boss". I guess I was wrong however you were also when you commented sarcastically that "even if you sang it off key", you couldn't add the song. Please keep in mind WP:Civil when you comment. Wikipedia editing is not a contest, no one's keeping score. Quadzilla99 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was a little confrontational myself if so, I apologize. Quadzilla99 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Related article nominated for deletion
See Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture. As that debate may have an impact on this article (particularly when people propose merging), I thought it would be only fair that the editors of this page be made aware of the debate. Mango juice talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

General
Is potent potables really all that common anymore? This hasn't appeared in years, with the possible exception of in Celebrity Jeopardy on SNL. Also: are "X-letter words," "The Answer Lies Within" and the "Three Choices" legitimate categories? They have been becoming more and more popular since mid-2005. (see revision at 14:52 22 Apr 2007)


 * Potent potables is a classic category, so it is kept. 'Lies Within' and 'choices' are quite rare, but recurring.  Argueably, all of these could be used on the article, but we don't want to be a directory of categories.  'World capitals' and 'Shakespeare' are common categories as well, but we don't want to overcrowd the secton.  Also, be sure to add your comment to the bottom of a talk page, so it is easier to find, and to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ).  Cheers!  Reywas92 Talk 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

X-Men
I noticed tonight that, in the Double Jeopardy! round, the categories had an X-Men-like theme. They were as follows: Wolverine, Storm, Magneto, Rouge, Colossus, and "X"-Men.

64.53.2.215 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think this is notable for inclusion, I would argue that it is not. It is very typical of the show to do theme rounds such as this. Andy Saund e rs 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

HD Broadcast
Does anyone know the actual HD format of the show? I know it's in syndication, so I wanted to ask before adding "Picutre Format" to the infobox. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, it's shown by KNXV, which, being an ABC affiliate, broadcasts in 720p. Anyone have information to the contrary? Uagent 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * Yes, the "one in 25 million" assessment is ridiculous. It's hard to see how they arrived at it but I'm guessing it involved an assumption of stochastic independence of the three scores after FJ, which is obviously incorrect. How many episodes have there been in the Trebek era? 5000 or so? I guess that includes tournament games. But based on there being exactly one tie game in that sample, you can see that a better estimate of the probability of a tie game is 1/5000. There are some problems with that methodology as well (it isn't really a random sample), but I think it's correct within an order of magnitude. How many times in the Art Fleming era was there a 3-way tie? What about Rock&Roll Jeopardy, and the various international editions of Jeopardy (Swedish, Turkish, etc.)? --Mathew5000 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As per posts to the official Jeopardy! Message Board, the academic apparently responsible for that figure was David K. Levine. Ewok has posted to his game theory forum asking Prof. Levine to justify the figure. Robert K S 09:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As it turned out, Dr. Levine only squared 5,000 to arrive at the "one in 25 million" figure, so as Mathew5000 (among many others) points out, it has extremely little meaningful value and should not be reported in this article as a fact just because some game theory authority was asked for a sound bite. Robert K S 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New infobox discussion
Seeing as there's some opposition to the new Infobox that has just been added, let's hammer out whether or not we want it on the Talk Page here. Andy Saunders 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * That's an interesting idea; I think that it might be a good split (especially as the succession box would go in the 1964 article). What do others think? Andy Saunders 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything? I really don't think that a TV guide from the 70s is really necessary, even if they were split.  Anyway, hasn't that already been done in Jeopardy! Broadcast history?  What went before and after the show just seems like indesriminate information.  Reywas92 Talk 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon WP:NOT: Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. I would contend that this succession box is similar enough to a TV guide for it not to be suitable for Wikipedia. Andy Saunders 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How much detail is really required about the tie game?
Personally, I think that the article should just have something similar to "The first and only three-way tie in the entire 23 year history of the show happened on March 16, 2007. All three contestants earned $16,000 and got to appear in the next episode.", with a reference to the J! Archive, as currently appears in the upper part of "Special Cases". I really don't think that the event is notable or encyclopedic enough to actually provide full details other than that. Discuss. Andy Saunders 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly right. Wikipedia isn't a site for NEWS FLASH!es. Robert K S 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I don't want to get involved
Well I got something on my talk page saying that I discuess a revert I made. I considered it vandalism and I don't want to get involved in a debate. Follows is a quote.

Jeopardy! infobox
Hey, I'd like to see the new Jeopardy! infobox that you reverted discussed on the talk page so that the editors can come to a consensus as to its inclusion. Thanks! Andy Saunders 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

New Record Set Recently
I know next to nothing about editing Wikipedia,but I do know that on a show that aired yesterday, there was the first three way tie in hisory! Could someone add this to the articls, perhaps under "special rules" or something to that effect? SaVeD333 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)SaVeD333SaVeD333 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We've had your back for a few days now. ;) Check out section 2.5 ("Special Cases") - the three-way tie is mentioned there. It aired last Friday for those who didn't have to suffer through March Madness preemptions. --Scani 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latest AP story posted
It's completely not notable and irrelevant. Every prepared contestant will make wagers specifically calculated to achieve a certain outcome. It's called strategy. Contestants have wagered to "bet to tie" before; this is nothing new in the Jeopardy! canon. Andy Saunders 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Jeopardy redirect
I'll suggest this here because few people read Talk:Jeopardy. Should Jeopardy remain a diambig to Jeopardy!, or shall we redirect it here and create Jeopardy (disambiguation)? Most people typing Jeopardy into the search box are looking for this. Reywas92 Talk 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable to suggest that the most common use of Jeopardy is Jeopardy!. redirect can be used to direct users to the disambiguation page. Although someone could demonstrate Jeopardy can have another significant meaning, I believe this is the primary use. Because Jeopardy (disambiguation) has a history, it has to go through WP:RM. I can initiate that process. Tinlinkin 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion is set up at Talk:Jeopardy. Tinlinkin 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I have just archived this page so it is not too long. Harrison- HB4026 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Since there is more than one show called Jeopardy, shouldn't there be a disambiguation page? Or at least make Jeopardy! link to this page, and Jeopardy link to a disambiguation? Talk User:Fissionfox 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're just a bit late for that discussion, but there's nothing that says you can't reopen it. Robert K S 11:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fleming: Tuxedo VS Picture:
The section on Fleming's era states he always wore a tuxedo, yet the accompanying image, captioned 1974, clearly shows a suit, NOT a tuxedo. can someone more familiar than I adjust this in the correct manner, either by fixing the caption or removing the tuxedo comment? ThuranX 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that the picture has been placed where it is not as relevant. The picture is from the daily network version of the show, whereas the section in which the picture has been placed refers to the weekly syndicated version of the show.  (Yes, two versions of Jeopardy! were being produced concurrently.) Robert K S 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alextrebek86.jpg
Image:Alextrebek86.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Robert K S 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tv jeopardy category.jpg
Image:Tv jeopardy category.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Syndicated premiere/finale dates
According to the intro, the syndicated version premiered on September 9, 1974 and its finale was on September 7, 1975. The thing about that is, September 9 was a Monday in 1974 and September 7 was a Sunday in 1975. I would think they should be the same day of the week. Does anyone have a source for these? -Joltman 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I may have been the one to add the dates, and I think my only source may have been this.  If you find it's wrong, please do correct! Robert K S 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
There is a note in editing that there is a special page specifically for pop culture relating to Jeopardy!, but there isn't. So I added a reference on the main page about Jay Leno's Celebrity Jeopardy!. I think that it is significant enough to be included as along with SNL, it is the only ongoing parody. If we're going to argue about significance, I don't think Weird Al's song should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.244.24 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That notice is out of date; I've gone in and change it. The article "Jeopardy! in popular culture" was successfully nominated for deletion several months ago. I don't believe there is any consensus to bring it back, and considering the length of the article as it is, most editors are quite loath to let the Popular Culture section grow unchecked unless there are some very good claims for notability. If you wish to make an argument for its inclusion on that sort of significance, you're welcome to do so, but you should have good evidence to back it up (not just personal opinion). In any case, thanks for leaving your feedback here and contributing! --Scani 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A note about my edits today
Just wanted to chime in to say a little about what I've been doing with the article today and in my past edits. Since this article is very long and detailed, I thought its flow would benefit from moving some of the more detailed particulars to the footnotes section. Examples of specific events from the show and other notes not directly related to Jeopardy! are the types of items that I've been shifting into footnotes. This allows the reader to get the big picture from the article, then refer to footnotes for supporting evidence/examples or more minute details. I believe this is how this type of material would be (and is usually) handled in any scholarly article or book. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ETA: There's already been one rv of my footnoting by an anonymous editor. I hope he or she will read this note and understand the reasoning behind moving footnote-caliber parentheticals into, well, the footnotes. Robert K S (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cruftiness and Clean Up
To explain my tagging. This article has quite a bit of fancruft in it that needs to be cleaned out. The gameplay section is excessive and takes up far too much of the article. Do we really need TEN sections to give a basic overview of how a relatively simple game show works? The game play section should be likened to the plot or synopsis section of a fictional program, and limited to a brief overview. Jeopardy! recurring categories seems to have no real purpose. The section here provides no context and just goes off to the seemingly unsourced, OR list. Is a list even necessary? One or two examples and noting the existance of special categories as part of the game play is all that is needed.

The Other Versions section needs sourcing and clean up. Returning Champions seems oddly placed and is entirely unsourced (how can no one have found sources for Ken Jennings, at the last??). Perhaps move it under tournaments. Special Tournaments needs to be moved under tournaments. Do those special tournaments really need their own articles? The paragraphs here seem more than sufficient for most of them. The separate articles seem to add no additional content. Ditto many of the other sub-articles. Jeopardy! audition process is ridiculously long and could easily be summed up in this article in one or two paragraphs, if it can be properly sourced. Jeopardy! theme songs should be merged back in as part of an over all production details section, which should be the bulk of the article rather than the gameplay details. In popular culture is trivia and should be axed. Awards needs sourcing. Episode status should also be incorporated into a production details section. Jeopardy! in merchandising also needs to be merged back, shortened and cleaned up, and made sure its all referenced. Jeopardy! around the world needs to be brought back in, converted to sourced prose, and included as part of an over all reception section.

For those sub-articles that should be kept (set evolution, though another name should be considered), they also need cleaning, sourcing, and checked to make sure they are tagged as being in the TV project. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to get the opinions of someone new to the article, the history of which helps explain, if not excuse, its state as a set of sub-articles. On January 6, 2008, User:TenPoundHammer added the  template,  prompting User:TriviaGeek1985 to try to respond to the template simply by carving up the article.  (The other articles in the article family were similarly spun-off under similar circumstances earlier.)  This has resulted in sub-articles that probably would not pass AfD, the recurring categories article among them.  In any case, merging them back in, as you suggest for the music, merchandising, and international versions articles, would only set the article back to its early-January state.  If they can't be properly sourced individually, they should be deleted.  As for the "in popular culture section", that battle has been waged several times before, spinning off and finally AfD'ing (after two or three failures) a much larger popular culture section.  The one as it exists presently is a reasonable sample (in both its brevity and in the significance of its three examples) of that larger, now-deleted section and I think keeping it on its merits as links to evolved, high-importance articles consitutes neither concession nor compromise to cruft.  Episode status is not related to the production of the program but rather its preservation post-airing.  I would particularly oppose the conversion of the international versions table to prose, which would do nothing to organize or enhance the presentation.  (Would Oldest living United States president also be a candidate for prose treatment?) Robert K S (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merging them back would not need to set it back, if the article is also cleaned up, trimmed down, and those sub's given the same treatment. One reason the article is so long is from the excessive gameplay section. If that were given a thorough clean up and cut down, I suspect we'd find much more room for the rest. The article needs to stop focusing on the game play, and start focusing on areas such as production, reception, criticism (is there any?), etc. For in popular culture...a list tends to just invite vandalism. To me, a far better solution is a prose section discussion the impact on culture and society. For the international version, I feel prose is better, as the table doesn't really do much either, and as this is the English version, from my understanding we shouldn't give undue emphasis to non-English versions.  Having a separate article, to me, is giving undue influence.


 * Oldest living United States president...what an odd article... :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have an article called Pyramid game and tournament play to explain the rules of the various incarnations of Pyramid game show franchise. Perhaps a separate article about the "Jeopardy!" rules and variations would be a suggestion. Briguy52748 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)]]


 * That would not help, it just moves the cruft off to another article, which has already been done too much on this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply back. After thinking about this briefly overnight, I was wondering — you present your vision of the article at the top of the section. But have you considered making the changes yourself? (For instance, copying the article to a word-processing program and, after printing a hard copy, editing it and then making the changes before copying it back to the Wikipedia). One of the pillars of Wikipedia, as I'm sure you are aware, is to be bold; meaning, if you see something wrong with an article, change it, by golly! You've got some good suggestions, and some of the ideas you had are actually quite good. Yes, I agree that the article has gotten too long with too many good-faith edits. I still believe a separate article for the gameplay is appropriate. An informative, well-sourced article can be written minus the cruft you fear would be included in such an article, plus contain any appropriate changes to the rules and modifications in tourney play. Besides, our job as Wiki editors is to patrol these articles (problem or not). Plus, it would help set up some of the things Wiki editors tend to like in an overview article (e.g., critical reception, impact on culture, etc.). Anyhow, my two cents. Briguy52748 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)]]


 * I have, however, as I've noted in another conversation on my talk page, when a page does seem to have some dedicated editors, I usually find it better to make suggestions first and let them work with the issues, and offer additional advice as comments as needed. If I feel it will help, I'll also alert the Television project to the article (which I have done with this and two other game show articles), so others can come in. This usually avoids stepping on toes and causing feelings that their work in the article is being insulted (though it would appear I'm not doing so well on avoiding the latter in this case).  In 99% of cases where I've been bold and done sweeping clean ups, I usually find myself at the bad end of nasty comments and personal attacks, which isn't very good for my personal well-being. Also, for this particular article, a lot of work is needed, to me, which I honestly have no time to personally do. I've already got a lengthy backlog of things to do, including working on no less than four potential FLs and two GAs.AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't worry about personal attacks. If your bold edits to the Jeopardy! are acceptable to the Wikipedia community in general, then you should be proud of what you've done. You've stated you plan to alert the Television project about cleaning up this article (if I misspoke here of your intentions, my apologies); this is a great idea and perhaps they will have some good ideas to contribute. Briguy52748 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)]] (P.S. — a helpful bit of advice: You may want to define what "FL" and "GA" mean; I think GA means good article and I had to look up FL to see it means featured lists, but younger Wiki editors might not know that).


 * Simply too many notes? I periodically search for ways of trimming the article without depriving it of important details.  The gameplay details are there because they are critical to understanding the game and are so little-discussed on the show.  (Again and again, from people who are casual fans, arise questions like "Why did he bet all that money if he didn't know the answer to Final Jeopardy!?" and "Why didn't she just wager $0 on the Daily Double?"  An article that is equipped to answer such questions is more desirable than one stripped of that capability.)  So most of my efforts in slimming that article have involved transplanting specific examples to the footnotes section (see above talk section). Robert K S (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the film article is supposed to illustrate (except it needs cleanup)? For those question isn't really something this article should be trying to answer.  Unless the contestant is interviewed somewhere, then really, any answer we attempt to give is pure guess work and OR. We don't know they were thinking. I've had similar questions while watching, but I would never expect Wikipedia to answer them.  That's just people being people (and sometimes stupid :P).  I'm not saying there doesn't need to be some description of the gameplay, but this level of detail is pure fancruft and belongs in a game show wiki or wikia, but they do not add encyclopedic value here, where the focus should be on things like production, history, impact, reception, not half an article describing what should take, at most, three paragraphs (and not even that, I'd think). AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you're not familiar with the show, either? The answers are neither "guesswork" nor "OR" but are artifacts of the rules of the game.  Contestants place their wagers before the Final clue is exposed (hence many viewers' perception of contestants frittering away vast sums of money on wrong or blank responses is a mistaken one), and the minimum Daily Double wager is $5 (hence a player cannot preserve an exactly doubled lead that would guarantee a win if she hits a Daily Double on the last clue of the game).  Both of these facts--not their consequences, mind, you, but their bases--are in the article as it stands, and I worry that they would be eliminated with the type of paring down you're suggesting.  It's not "people being... stupid", it's people being ignorant, and a Wikipedia article is a great solution to ignorance, until, of course, it is "fixed" with ignorance. Robert K S (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am familiar with the show (though I didn't know about the $5 minimum on DD). The final clue, people do often fritter away funds. They know what the topic is, and they make the choice to presume they know enough in the topic to wager it all or play it safe. Rather than "play it safe" people will often take the chance and risk it all, and the one who wins is the one who played it safe and didn't risk all of their money :P The facts alone don't require the extensive detail given here, and are there sources for the $5 minimum? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you didn't know about the $5 rule, then you didn't read the article. If you didn't read the article, how could you dismiss the sections that describe its rules as cruft? Robert K S (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A word for word reading is not necessary to recognize it is excessive and crufty. I quick skimmed. When you work in a project and a certain type of articles, you learn to do it while doing quick evaluations. And, in truth, only a die hard fan would be likely to bother to read all of that. Would someone just curious as to what Jeopardy is about really want to read such an extensive description, or would they expect to find a brief synopsis and run away when they realize they aren't going to get a quick answer here? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken another shot at paring down the article's gameplay sections further, following some of the suggestions you made on your talk page. I am concerned, however, that further deletions might cripple the article's description of the rules of play. Robert K S (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Conceit, not concept
Conceit is the proper term to use in the context of "The conceit of "questioning answers" is original to Jeopardy! and, along with its theme music, remains the most enduring and distinctive element of the show." Please do not change it to "concept". For more information about literary conceit, check out the wiki-link to conceit above. Andy Saund e rs 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget the "literary" sense, even. Conceit in this context is somewhat synonymous with "novelty", a shade of meaning that the word "concept" does not convey, even if it would seem to work.  If we keep having a problem, we can, perhaps, just wikt-link the word in the article. conceit noun. An idea, particularly as a literary device; an extended metaphor. Robert K S 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The wikt- link will not be fool-proof, as even I won't recognize the literary novel sense in a first reading. The common usage of the word is "self-conceit" (e.g. Isn't he conceited in thinking this way?) I actually feel the first link by Andy is the better way to go. Tinlinkin 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: the addition of the word "literary" as a qualifier into the article. Come now.  The usage of the word "conceit" here has nothing to do with the literary.  This is Jeopardy!, not Longfellow.  "Literary conceit" has a specific meaning of metaphor or simile: comparisons being drawn between two things analogically.  As used here and, I would venture to say, in the majority of its uses in the English language, "conceit" simply means "something conceived."  "Concept" is a cognate and does not have quite the same meaning; in particular, it does not connote uniqueness, fancifulness, or novelty. Robert K S 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. But why not replace it with "novelty" or "novel idea"? (Maybe the connotation of specialness is lost? and I won't nag anymore after this.) Tinlinkin 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any response to this save to say that if there are users who don't know the meaning of the word "conceit" there are probably also going to be users who aren't familiar with the meaning of the word "novel". I can envision a discussion identical to the one above, except with someone arguing that "novel" can't be the right word because it refers to a kind of fiction book.  If we perpetually translate down to the LCD on this Wikipedia, we end up with the Simple English Wikipedia. Robert K S 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert, in order for Wikipedia to be usable in general, it must appeal (to a certain extent) to the general reader, not the expert. You're suggesting that in order to accomplish this we'd have to dumb down every article, which is a slippery slope of an argument. I'm no slouch when it comes to literary terms but I'm still confused by this particular usage, so let's keep it simple enough for most, rather than only the elite, to appreciate and understand . Twir (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break folks. I had to re-read three times to figure out it was not a typo. Usage of "concept" of "literary conceit" in a simple article about jeopardy smacks of intellectual snobbishness. 162.95.80.214 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The usage of conceit is confusing to the average person, for whom the article is written, rather than your literary know-all. Isn't there a style guideline that pertains to this? Twir (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've asked around among my friends and family, most of whom are relatively intelligent and college educated, and nobody understands this usage of conceit. I realize it's pretty ridiculous to continue arguing about a single sentence, but I think that considering it takes a MENSA member to understand what the heck this article is talking about I'll just **Be Bold** and make this sentence simpler. Leave a note on my talk page if you can come up with a good reason why I shouldn't. (Specifically, I'm looking for an argument that justifies an obscure or expert word usage in a non-technical article.) Twir (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree neither that the word is too obscure for an encyclopedia article nor that "concept" is a suitable replacement for it. I've posted my thoughts to your talk page.  If people keep popping in to object to the word, then it won't survive in the long term.  Either reasonable people will come to concur with its suitability or the sentence will be rewritten to obviate its use, but the current revision doesn't convey the intended meaning of the sentence. Robert K S (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OR -- and this is an obtuse concept (conceit?) people, so stay with me -- we could all realize that we're giving excessive consideration to the term used to describe the mechanics of a freakin' game show, for chrissake. Conciet? Concept? What is, "No one in their right mind gives a damn" for $200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.174.253 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)