Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive 2

J! Archive
J! Archive has been removed as a "reference" from the article, and as a link. I've been asked to explain why it fails the sourcing guideslines. It if a fan-created site "for fans, by fans" and does NOT meet the WP:RS guidelines. Specifically, per the RS page:


 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - J! Archive has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. It is a fans-site and provides no sources for its "facts."

It also goes against the WP:V policy. Again, to be specific:


 * "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" - a fan site is, by nature, not neutral.


 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." - as this is an unsourced fansite, and as such is full of personal opinions and rumors. Just because the editors working on it agree on a PO or rumor does not make it a reliable source, nor a valid or factual item.


 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - J! Archive is a self-published site run by a handful of people, none of whom are experts in the field.

Hopefully that fully explains why J! Archive is NOT a reliable source and should not be used in the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"...none of whom are experts in the field." I'd like to dispute that assertion. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4193044 -- I've been interviewed by NPR about the program, I'm pretty sure that would make me some sort of expert. Oh, I also happen to be one of J! Archive's editors. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no, that wouldn't. I could get interviewed by any news company at any time on my hobbies of anime, manga, bentoing, etc, doesn't make me an expert on any of them.  The interview doesn't list you as an expert, it lists you as an "enthusiast" aka a fan. So, that's now two editors on this article with a WP:COI for J! Archive.  Any others? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But have you? No. Because their news departments would look for experts in those fields to talk about them. Of course, lack of respect for expertise is why I'm now done with Wikipedia. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Randomly being reviewed because you run a fansite doesn't make you an expert. News companies regularly talk to regular people, not just experts. I know several bento fans who have been interviewed by their local news. They aren't experts, they aren't even from Japan, but they are interviewed because its "human interest" and an unusual hobby.  Wikipedia has plenty of respect for expertise. Verifiable, reliable expertise and not self-published stuff. Trying to shove your site in an article when you have a clear COI does not really help your case.  I run a review site for anime and manga, but I sure wouldn't go around quoting my own reviews or using it as a source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NPR's All Things Considered is hardly a local newscast. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim it was. Just gave an example. NPR didn't call you an expert, it called you a fan. You can claim to be an expert all you want, that doesn't make you one. And even if you were "an expert" you would automatically be precluded from editing this article using yourself as a source per Wikipedia policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I happen to disagree with this systemic bias towards expertise that this project has. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, J-Archive is basically a fancy layout of a transcript of each show. What's WP policy on online transcripts that are not put out by the primary entity? It's not quite the same thing as commentary and opinion like a typical fansite. Just sort of curious. -R. fiend (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless the transcripts are official released or permission given by Jeopardy, transcripts of the show are massive copyright violations and should never be linked to. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Of course, that makes sense. While I doubt Merv Griffin Enterprises is going to go after J-Archive, I guess they still are technically in violation of copyright. WP policy is quite clear on the subject; I think that may be a more significant factor than the discrepancy between expert and fan. -R. fiend (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think the point was that the J-Archive was deemed by an editor to be a copyright violation and a fan site, among other reasons, and thus inappropriate to include as one of the article's external links. Whether Sony goes after the J-Archive is not within the scope of Wikipedia. Briguy52748 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Infobox
What is the "Trebek daytime" statistic, as distinct from the "Trebek syndicated" statistic? Does someone think the year-old reruns which air daily in some markets are new episodes? I'm not going to change it myself, because I'm new to the page and I don't want to chop out someone else's work right off the bat, but I think using dates and descriptive terms such as "1964-75 network" and "1974-75 syndicated" rather than "Fleming daytime" and "Fleming syndicated" would be more informative, as well as being consistent with other TV show infoboxes. JTRH (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already been corrected. JTRH (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given the infobox some clean up and expansion. It was missing a lot of very basic information easily available on the Jeopardy site. I've left a note on the infobox talk page to ask how to deal with the network issue. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The info you added applies only to currently-produced episodes of the Trebek version; the info you deleted was correct and useful (number of episodes for the various versions), and the "Original channel" section is a mess of incorrect information. I will make some attempt to fix all this. Robert K S (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is what the infobox is for. It is not a detailed breakdown or history, but a quick overview. For the production info of a show this length, it should primarily focus on the current versions/staff.  The episodes per version should be handled with sourced prose in the article, not in the infobox.  Changes in major production staff, such as producer, should also be handled in the show's history or production details as sourced prose. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes for long-running shows are susceptible to bloat, which is, if I had to venture a guess, why the pre-Collectonian era left a number of those fields blank. For a television show infobox to only represent the most recent airing of a show makes little sense.  If a television show runs for a decade with the same director on every episode save for its series finale, does the infobox for that show on Wikipedia omit the series' primary director?  IMO, for Jeopardy!, it would be best to leave the producers, directors, writers, and other rotating staff out of the infobox.  Any cast or crew mentioned for the Trebek era need to be mentioned for the Fleming era as well unless/until this article is split into different versions for the different eras (a split I don't currently favor).  There's no reason to list all the staff and try to turn the infobox into an IMDb page.  I couldn't find MoS guidelines to support Collectonian's interpretation of the intended use of the television infobox. Robert K S (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe I'm interpreting wrong, feel free to bring up on the infobox talk page as to whether the infoxbox should include all of the historical info, or only the current one. For long running series, the common practice is not to just remove the info, but to include the current info if adding all would bloat the box too much, and leave the historical to prose. Writers and directors are only left out if it regular differs from episode to episode. Jeopardy's director does not. Removing the fields is not a good option, as it removes very basic information which is, quite honestly, not even covered in the article right now. No where in the article does it mention Harry Friedman being the producer, even though he recently won an award because of it! I have asked the TV project to also address the question, as it is one that affects several long running show articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might note that a number of the things you have complained this article does not cover were branched off to the Jeopardy! broadcast history article prior to your involvement in the article. Your "bring up on the infobox talk page" remark leads me to believe that your understanding of proper infobox use is not, in fact, based on consensus/guideline.  If it's an issue that has been addressed in the past, please direct us to that discussion.  It is improper for this article's infobox to leave off mention of Fleming/Pardo and co.  Because of the confusion in the past about actual episode numbers, distinction between versions is critical even in the infobox. Robert K S (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be a summary of the history here, not just a link off. I said that because you disagree with what is the current consensus and feel I'm mispeaking, so I'm directing you to another place where either my view will be corrected, or yours.  A confusion over episode numbers has nothing to do with how many episodes there are.  The infobox does not need that kind of breakdown. Put it in prose in the text.  All the stuff that should be discussed in the article is either totally missing, or shoved off on some little read sub-article, while the article itself is taken over with game cruft.  The article needs to be retooled to focus on the production details, reception, criticsms, etc, and game play severely shortened. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) You are welcome to propose suitable ways to shorten the gameplay section that would still allow the article to present a description of how the game is played. Such a description is not cruft, it is the definition of the game. What's up with continuing to revert to "26 minutes" for the runtime? With commercials, the show is 30 minutes; without them, it's 22. Isn't your re-addition of Fleming as host inconsistent with your deletion of all other Fleming information? Robert K S (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the infobox instruction, the commercials shouldn't be included in the runtime, they aren't a part of the show. If its 22 minutes without, then the runtime is 22 minutes. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Robert K S in that, in order to put everything - production, reception, etc., into perspective, the game play rules need to be adequately covered and explained. That's why I proposed splitting the gameplay into an article of its own; such can be accomplised without the cruft, and it can be patrolled to keep the cruft out. Briguy52748 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)]]


 * You have added inaccurate information for both the number of episodes and the number of seasons. Robert K S (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of episodes is what was there in the article. If its wrong, fix it or fix the as of date. Don't just keep putting back the breakdown. As for the seasons, that number came from TV.com.  If its wrong, please provide the correct number. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way to present the exact number of seasons both simply and accurately since two of them ran concurrently (Fleming network & Fleming syndicated). There is no way to accurately present the number of episodes without a breakdown because the best figure we have for Fleming syndicated is "about 40", and because it is not straightforward to derive the number of Trebek episodes from the Trebek episode numbers.  The breakdown permits for accurate updates of the total number.  May I suggest you are fighting a battle you appear not to understand?  The fact that you have, despite your best intentions, added inaccurate information for these fields is reason enough to omit the one and explicate the other.  Robert K S (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How is the breakdown more accurate than just the total? If the total is wrong, then the breakdown is wrong as well. If all of it is coming from a bunch of guesses, then none of it should be included at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The breakdown is more accurate than the total because it indicates (by the tilde) that the total number given is an approximation (not, as you put it, "a bunch of guesses") and because it shows the source of that uncertainty (the imprecisely-known number of syndicated Fleming episodes aired). The breakdown is more accurate than the total because it separates the Trebek number out from the rest and permits periodic recomputation of the number (from the show number - 66 computation as detailed in the "episode status" section of the article).  The breakdown is more accurate than the total because it allows the user to include or exclude at his or her discretion the Super Jeopardy! shows, the inclusion of which as part of the Jeopardy! series is arbitrary.  Your "it's all or nothing" position is irrational.  As elsewhere in Wikipedia, we should be trying to present the most accurate information to the best ability of our sourcing.  If a number of seasons cannot be included without a sentence-long explanation, let's omit it from the infobox.  If a number of episodes can be presented accurately with a simple breakdown, let's do so rather than try to pass off an inaccurate or inadequately justified number. Robert K S (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you have deleted the information, claiming it to be unsourced, a falsity. If you want me to add a citation superscript, I would be happy to.  I am concerned that you seem to have stopped operating in good faith. Robert K S (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said above, that the episodes counts are approximations, and that the number of episodes is imprecise. That is a guess and fails the requirement that information be verifiable and reliable. If reliable sources can not be given for each "breakdown" or for an over all episode count to give an accurate number, then the count shouldn't be included at all. We don't get to make our "best guess," as that is WP:OR. We are reporters of verified, sourceable information.  There are a lot of articles and cases where one could make a good educated guess about something, but without a verifiable source to back it up, it doesn't belong.  So unless there is an official source for the episode count, it should come out.


 * One issue with all of the information seems to be dealing with daytime versus nighttime versions. Perhaps the article should be split, similar as to what was done with Wheel of Fortune? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me, and greatly. Without getting into the scientific distinction between accuracy and precision, the number of episodes is not imprecise, and only the number of episodes for the Fleming syndicated version is an approximation. This "about 40" figure has not been fabricated; see The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows by David Schwartz, Steve Ryan, Fred Wostbrock. Finally, there is no such thing as a "nighttime" version of Jeopardy! The distinction is between network daytime and syndicated. Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked about the Fleming syndicated shows statistic on another forum. A response came that the 1974 NATPE issue of Broadcasting (a trade publication which is recognized as reliable and authoritative) has a blurb for the syndicated show, saying that 36 first-run episodes would be made available for that season. I asked if the respondent could send me the cover date to use as a citation. Does that provide us with a definitive and accepted answer to the question of how many of these there were, or is it possible that 36 eps. could have been produced but not all aired, even if the show ran a full year counting reruns? JTRH (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking around, JTRH. What volume/issue was that?  Do you think you could get a scan of the page?  (Not that a scan would be necessary for Wikipedia—just for my own curiosity's sake.)  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The person who answered my query didn't mention an issue number. My university's library has back issues, so I can probably find it with a little digging. I'm assuming late 1973-early 1974, since the show debuted in fall '74 and they had to have time to do the syndication sales. JTRH (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He got back to me: Feb. 18, 1974, p. 36. I'll see if I can track it down tomorrow. JTRH (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd love to have a scan of the relevant text by e-mail, if you have a scanner. Robert K S (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to scan it at school tomorrow, since I can't take it out of the library. Shouldn't be a problem.JTRH (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I confirmed the source at my local library and took a picture if anyone needs to see it. I also found a full-page ad for the broadcast rights for syndicated Fleming Jeopardy! in the next issue of the same periodical, but the ad didn't provide additional information.  It just reads, "Another hit from Merv Griffin Productions - Available for one-a-week prime time access programming starting Sept., 1974 - Jeopardy! - starring Art Fleming - Entering its 11th winning year on the NBC-TV network - #1 in its time period on the NBC-TV network the last four years, 1970-74* - One of the highest rated and most successful network game shows in the history of network television - Specially produced for prime time access - All new half-hours - On tape - In color - Phone,wire or write immediately for availability in your market - Distributed by Metromedia Producers Corporation".  Apparently the "specially produced for prime time access" bit was with reference to Fleming's new wardrobe. :-) Robert K S (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture
I would like to add something short about the "fifth dimension" element that has come up on the show. Basically, (I'm not joking), there is a humorous belief that if Alex Trebeck states his name backwards he will be sent back to the fifth dimension. Do a Google search of "Alex Trebeck fifth dimension" and you will find that there are many reference sources as well as video from the show where a contestant tries to get the host to do this.Dough007 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Um...I don't think that should be included at all. Besides being silly, are there any actual reliable sources to support (not just people being amused by the thought)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few sources.

This subject is also referenced on the Alex Trebeck Wikpedia page, written by someone other than myself.
 * http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_popculture_blog/2007/06/life_imitates_f.html
 * http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHnX-fqlo1M&feature=related
 * The pop culture phenomenon was featured on Fox show Family Guy in the episode entitled I Take Thee Quagmire

I understand how silly this concept is. Nevertheless it is part of Popular Culture, even though you may not be aware of it.Dough007 (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Again, are there any reliable sources? A blog is not a reliable source. Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. A YouTube video is not a reliable source. Secondarily, does it actually add anything of encyclopedic value to the article? 99% of the times IPC does nothing but add trivia under another name. Is this IPC any different? It doesn't give an encyclopedic discussion of Jeopardy's influence on popular culture, rather it just seems to be a list of disparate items (aka, trivia).AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That, and numerous other pop culture references have been added, deleted, added, deleted... Robert K S (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking it up on here and found that it was not listed, but a few times in the movie Encino Man the main characters discuss jeopardy for it's awesomeness as well as a learning tool. Maybe something about that should be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.47.64 (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

excessive or improper use of copyrighted images
This article contains images of the show's current logo (for the infobox, per logo usage guidelines), images of the two longtime hosts in their capacities as emcees of the show, an image of the game board, and images of two production slates that serve to definitively nail down episode numbers and how they correspond to airdates, appropriate usage for the section. In total among these, there are only three actual pictures on the page. There are no image galleries, no parts of the article in which text is squeezed between columns of images left and right, and there are no images that are irrelevant or out of place. Is this template banner justified? Robert K S (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article contains six WP:NONFREE images. As per many discussions there, the image of Trebek is an invalid non-free usage (replacable) and does not apply to the section it is in.  The two production slate images appear to be completely unnecessary, are not discussed within the article text, and do not apply to the section they appear in. Images are rarely a valid reference, so the purpose you've stated for them doesn't apply.


 * As a related note, while the image of Countries with versions of Jeopardy! is free, it is totally unnecessary for a one sentence section that leads off to one of the many unnecessary subarticles. It should be moved to that article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with your last bit. Everything else you said was simply a restatment and fallacious negation of my comments above.  Trebek in his capacity as the emcee of the show is not replaceable with a free image.  Ditto for Fleming.  Any other encyclopedic reference about Jeopardy! features similar pictures; see, for example, the text I referenced to you above.  The slate images illustrate a discussion of episode numbering in the article text, and accompany the text in which they are mentioned apropos of this discussion.  Additionally, they are the only pictoral evidence anywhere on the Internet that definitively matches episode numbers to airdates. Robert K S (talk) 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I didn't mention Fleming.  Trebek's image is replacable with a free image as someone could go to the show and take their own picture, then releas it under GFDL for use here.  This applies to all pictures of living actors/actresses etc.  Many pictures of actors in character roles are removed for the same reason, because the image is replacable.  This is what has been stated many times before in WP:NONFREE.  Feel free to argue it there if you want.  The slate images are not specifically discussed, nor is the episode numbering.  Pictoral evidence is not needed to definatively match episode numbers to airdates, and, in truth, are unlikely to be considered reliable sources for such a  thing. Considering they are relatively random episodes, they add nothing.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a big assumption to say that someone could "go to the show and take their own picture". While local news cameras are occasionally permitted to film on the set of Jeopardy! while production is taking place, audience members are not permitted to bring cameras or other electronic devices into the sound stage.  Pictures of actors in character roles are rightly removed from biographical articles about the actors, but that reasoning applies to the Alex Trebek article and not to the Jeopardy! article.  The slate images and the episode numbering are discussed in the section in which those images appear. Robert K S (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, feel free to ask at WP:NONFREE. That is what was said regarding images of living people in television series articles, that they are almost always replacable with a free version. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Under WP:NONFREE, television screenshots are permissable "for critical commentary and discussion of... television." The article discusses these individuals in their capacities as hosts of the show.  Under WP:NONFREE, "pictures of people still alive" are disallowed "provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image".  No non-free image exists showing Trebek hosting Jeopardy!  The picture of Trebek could use better placement to match up with a description of him as the host of the show. Robert K S (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, taking another look at the article, the discussion of Trebek and Fleming that I thought was in the article was moved to the broadcast history spin-off article. The images could be transplanted there, but probably a better option would be to provide a more expansive summary of broadcast history in the main article. Robert K S (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of answers/questions
The article says there is a maximum of 61 answers/questions per show, but recently there was the intsance of there being a tie-breaker clue when 2 contestants tied after Final Jeopardy! (in the Tournament of Champions). I don't know if there would be another question if the tied remained. Perhaps the line regarding the maximum number of clues should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.141.182 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Adjusted. Robert K S (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bonus category?
Yes, I know it was widely reviled by fans, but shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? [The basic principle being that there were two answers for each clue; contestants needed to give one, and could then go for the second. The problem, IIRC, was that giving the second answer was a double-or-minus one proposition: if you gained $X for the first right answer, and then went for the second, you'd either end up at $2X or back at -$X.] Samer (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Potent potables
Potent potables redirects here. Yet, no description of the term is given on this page. Is that OK? It irritated me badly. --Dario1250 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should really redirect to Alcoholic beverage, which is what it refers to.  Reywas92 Talk  21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better. :) --Dario1250 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maximum amount of money
Maybe I overread it but it should be mentioned that the theoretical maximum a player can win by day is 502,400$ (assuming the player answers all questions in both rounds and finds the daily dubbel(s) at the end of those rounds and bets all in the three of them as well as in final jeopardy--Hendrikharry (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * $566,400, actually, but the consensus seems to be that it's not notable anyway. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fansite
The trivia isn't as bad, but I fear that this page goes into too much detail. We don't need to know things like "The light pen did not automatically cut off at the end of the 30-second Final Jeopardy! response period in the first season of the Alex Trebek version of the show"? I think not. And for God's sake, get some more sources already. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions
What has been the answer of clues the most in the run of Jeopardy? Nor3aga (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That question does not make sense. Are you asking for the most frequent correct response to clues in the past 24 years, or the highest number of consecutive clues correctly answered by a contestant? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok lemme go back to english class. It appears to be what is the most frequent answer.  Nor3aga (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)ur4facexoxoxoxox

Moar questions
Why doesn't the article address the show's origin at all? (I've heard that it was originally pitched as What's The Question, and producers said it "needed more jeopardies") Can we at least get something a little deeper and more specific than "since being created by Merv Griffin in the early 1960s"?

Also, the article claims (without a reference) that blind contestants use Braille keyboards in FJ!, but someone claiming to be Eddie Timanus edited his article in 2005 saying that he just used a normal keyboard. Has there been any effort to confirm this in either direction? 72.92.188.251 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an eternal, cyclical problem with this article. There is so much information of import anent Jeopardy! that it doesn't all fit in this article, and when editors try to make it all fit, other editors balk and add banners to the top of the article.  (See a couple messages above.)  At this point, a family of articles cover most aspects, and the right place for the information you seek is probably Jeopardy! broadcast history.  (No clue about the keyboards, though.) Robert K S (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Last instance of a Tiebreaker Round
In the special cases paragraph it reports that the last time a tie-breaker was used was November, 2007, but I believe one has occurred since.74.67.115.192 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Robert K S (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution
It would be a pointless move to re-nominate the article for a 3rd AfD when it's getting redirected to the main article here anyways. Doing so would be akin to a variation on "Double Jeopardy" (no pun intended).

I am currently in the process of locating my copies of Inside Jeopardy!, ''The Jeopardy! Book, and This... Is... Jeopardy!'', and I'll be skimming through each book thoroughly for sourced material. (keep in mind, the show's credits also serve as source material)

The problem with re-inserting that information into the Jeopardy! article itself is that we end up in the same exact situation that gave birth to the Jeopardy! set evolution article in the first place - that ultimately TPTB will likely deem the article is "too long" and will likely end up with the "set" references being deleted altogether (they've been in the past, who's to say it won't happen again in the future?). I remember writing the first entry in regards to the set's evolution back in 2005 when I was an anon user (had yet to register), and almost immedately the whole section got deleted and was considered as "fancruft" despite the fact that the Bullseye article contained a very large entry in regards to that show's set (still does, actually, as well as various other game show articles here). Also interesting to note is that right after it survived its first AfD, a template banner went up citing the need for photos that illustrated the text. The sad point with that? There are, to date, NO free images that exist of any iteration of the Jeopardy! set (primarily because audience members are prohibited from taking cameras into the studio), only non-free images that either exist in the form of screenshots from Jeopardy! episodes or scans from the three aforementioned books, both of which are IMNSHO poorly illustrated books when it comes to the set's evolution.

The Jeopardy! set, alongside the sets to the Price is Right and Wheel of Fortune, is one of television's most recognizable landmarks, and I thought it to be a disagrace when the only resource which documented its evolution as thoroughly as possible (including the evolution of technology utilized on it) was deemed not suitable for Wikipedia. The "Wikipedia is not a repository for things not found elsewhere on the internet" rule, I find, is an absolute flaw in its own right. If it's not elsewhere on the internet (in the depth and detail the original Jeopardy! set evolution article provided), how in the hell is anyone supposed to find it, period? Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've boldly removed the afd-merge tag as I've already merged sourced material from the set evolution article into here, and so the former article's edit history should not be deleted. Since it is currently a redirect, an AfD would be inappropriate anyway and an RfD would be unlikely to succeed. My advice is to keep building up sourced material in the "Set" section of this article (there's a lot of stuff missing, like it not currently mentioning anything about the pull-cards used in the Fleming sets versus the TV monitors in the Trebek sets). If anyone complains about it the section getting too large, as long as it is all based on cited sources, then a DRV would be appropriate to enable the material to be spun out again. DHowell (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of the new set on the article
I found a URL that shows you pictures of the new set! However, I'm not sure if the images should be placed on the article.



Follow the URL I placed here (but not placed in the article) to see the pictures of the new set.--70.240.215.204 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Chris

added additional info
I have inserted a note in the section talking about the use of the show in popular culture. I have added a small note stating that '''you do not owe any cash if you finish Double Jeopardy! in a negative score.'''--Tomballguy (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Chris

"Sushi bar"
Request for Editor Assistance – discuss. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements
I made a number of format changes to this article, condensing sections and removing over-linking. This article still needs a lot of work as do the the related tournament articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reconstruct Jeopardy! Set Evolution
And there is a person who doesn't know the set season use. They think the "Sushi Bar" was used for Season 19. WRONG!! It premiered in Season 13. Also, They think the set after the "Sushi Bar" was used in Season 22. WRONG!! It premiered in Season 19. And now when I correct it, the person has "Please do not change these numbers." Well, guess what? I will change it if it's WRONG!! And I'm with ya I.P. user. There is insufficient info on the sets, and the Season 2 Set is no longer in the box thing. I am on your side with rebuilding the Jeopardy! Set Evolution Page, and delete the insufficient data about the Trebek sets. One more thing. This guy doesn't say anything about the Fleming Sets. Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.42.40 (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am requesting that the article Jeopardy! Set Evolution be reconstructed due to the fact that the information on the article is legit. This will take time, but it will happen eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.202.62 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IP user is right, the info that was on Jeopardy! Set Evolution was legit all along, and you careless people decided to just delete that article! That's just weak, I can't belive you all...
 * The numbers in the captions you keep changing refer to the seasons from which those screenshots were taken, not to the first seasons with the set. The numbers do not mean to imply that those sets first started with those seasons. Robert K S (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Then please say for example (Season 13-18) (Season 19-22) etc. That wouldn't confuse people like me. And say something and add a few pics from the Fleming sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.42.40 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. BTW, please sign your messages. Robert K S (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you still reconstructing Jeopardy! Set Evolution?--Tomballguy (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Chris

I really don't know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.42.40 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Three-way ties
I'm 100% sure that the three-way tie mentioned is not the only one. I distinctly remember watching an episode (well, the conclusion of an episode) prior to 1987 where all three contestants finished with $5. Since it was very early in the run, Alex probably forgot about it completely by the time the more well-known three-way tie occurred. I don't have the tape, unfortunately. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Response" section
I find TenPoundHammer's templated requirement for a "response" section a bit unfathomable. The "response" to the show has been its longevity, its ratings, its profitability for its parent companies, its list recognition, and its garnered awards, which are all well-covered in the article (and its children) already. I suppose someone could try to dig up journalistic reviews of the show's 1964 or 1984 debuts, but the existence of such a piece is dubious (game shows do not attract critical attention and there is little reason to believe the case would have been different for Jeopardy!), and even should something like that exist, I can't imagine it saying anything substantive or somehow being authoritatively representative. TenPoundHammer, exactly what content are you looking for when you post that template? Robert K S (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Biggest returning champion
I think someone should include in the "returning champions" section that guy who won over two million when they started allowing people to keep on winning as long as they keep on winning. I'd put it in myself, but I don't know the guy's name, or the exact amount that he won.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

#jeopardy
It's tempting to mention #jeopardy here, the IRC channel on which the game was being played in the early nineties, hosted by alexbot. It was very popular and it is the only form of the game I've ever seen (I'm a European). But how does it fit in? 77.165.212.75 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not officially licensed, not a part of the show--doesn't fit into this article. If it's notable on its own terms, it might be mentioned in its own article. Robert K S (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

history
most pages with this level of detail have a history section. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeopardy! broadcast history. Robert K S (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion
Please discuss here: Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination). Sottolacqua (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Games Per Day
Mention should be made that more than one show is taped each day. A winner of a show grows more tired, I imagine, as the day goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenr (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected
Article protected for three days. Please discuss the issues on the talk page, rather than edit warring. If required, ask for assistance at MedCab. Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lockout duration
Elsewhere, TenPoundHammer asks, "Do you think the average reader really cares that the buzzer locks out for a quarter-second, a trivial fact which isn't even in the Jeopardy! book?" I'm not sure which book he's referring to, but I have at least three which discuss this issue in detail. The most authoritative source claims 1/4 second is the lockout length. Other sources vary, but are less reliable. My understanding is that the lockout re-engage is human-controlled and that any listed time is only approximate, but I could be wrong about this. (Indeed, the fact that trying to buzz in before the lockout has expired is said to extend the lockout duration suggests that the lockout must be computer-controlled and that I am wrong about this, if true. OTOH, it may not be true; see Dupée, below.) For my part, I'd be happy to cite the time as either "1/4 second" or "a fraction of a second"--either would be acceptable to me. Robert K S (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "That season [Season 2] Alex also introduced another change related to the players' signalling buttons. From time to time viewers will notice a frustrated contestant pushing down again on his signalling button, unable to get in.  This is because the signalling buttons now contain a lockout mechanism: If a contestant pushes the button too soon, he will be locked out for about a second and cannot ring in so as to get through until that second has passed.  If he pushes the button sooner he will remain locked out, having only succeeded in reactivating the lockout for an additional second." Eisenberg, revised edtition, page 79.  Eisenberg was there, but his nice round value and use of the word "about" suggests an approximation.  Eisenberg goes on to name Michael Day as the specific contestant whose style of play brought on the institution of the lockout system, and, incidentally, I've independently heard the same thing from Richard Cordray, who knew Day.
 * "If you press your button before the assistant presses his, you really do get locked out for a fifth of a second. If you keep ringing in before the lockout is over, you keep getting locked out, I think, but the total lockout time does not seem to exceed about a second.  (I am guessing from experience; I have not talked to any Jeopardy! techies about this.)"  Dupée, page 61.
 * "The rules on a contestant's buzzing in changed following the 1984-85 season of Jeopardy!, during which contestants were allowed to buzz in as soon as the answer was exposed. It was altered to allow Alex Trebek to read the clues in their entirety before contestants could buzz in.  Now, those who ring in too early are penalized 250 milliseconds (1/4 second) each time they jump the gun." Richmond, page 41.  This is the most numerically specific and comes from an official source.
 * If all these sources exist, why has one never been cited in the article even though a tag has been there for a while? Sottolacqua (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because tagging is an unproductive waste and can be empirically shown to have little effect on article improvement. If you want to get something right, you bring it to the attention of the experts, and the effective way to do that is through talk page messages not as effective as bringing an issue to the attention of experts through a talk page message [statement attenuated--tagging has its use and I'm not suggesting  tags not be used... they are simply insufficient for promoting article improvement]. Robert K S (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer the question – it's just an extension of your opinion re: tagging. I'd say the third bullet is sufficient for a source. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Computer contestant?
This recent links speaks to IBM's attempt to have a computer contestant on Jeopardy akin to Deep Blue and Chess...--Billymac00 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Random trivia
There is also a lot of random trivia throughout this article. Are the following anecdotes necessary for the description of the show?
 * "On at least one Fleming-hosted episode, all three contestants finished Double Jeopardy! with $0 or less, thereby disqualifying everyone from Final Jeopardy! The time normally used for the final round was filled with conversation among Fleming and the contestants. Three new contestants were featured on the following episode."
 * "A three-way loss has happened three times since 1984, the first occasion being on the second episode."
 * "Three contestants have each finished two consecutive games as co-champions."
 * "A three-way tie for first place has only occurred once since 1984, and only one contestant in the same period has won a game with the lowest amount possible, $1."
 * "Special considerations are also given for contestants who are unable to return as champion due to medical concerns. This occurred for the first time in Season 25, as three new contestants appeared on the January 19, 2009 episode due to the previous show's champion, Priscilla Ball, taking ill. At the top of the episode Alex Trebek explained that in such a case, the contestant would return at a later date as a co-champion. Again, on the episode in question, the three new contestants drew for position. Ball returned on the April 9, 2009 episode."
 * "There is a 66-game disparity between the show numbers assigned to first-run Jeopardy! episodes and the actual number of Trebek-era games played. To assist subscribing affiliate stations in airing episodes in the correct order, a show number is read by announcer Johnny Gilbert just prior to the taping of each game; this number is audible on the episodes as received by the affiliates and visible on the slate attached to them; however, this slate is trimmed from the show prior to broadcast."
 * "Each new episode receives an integer show number 1 greater than the previous episode. However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games, and a retrospective clip show that aired May 15, 2002 was also given a show number (#4088). As such, the game with show number #5000 aired on May 12, 2006, but the 5000th game hosted by Alex Trebek did not air until September 25."

Also, references to The Nanny and The Simpsons should likely be removed, since they are not as notable as the Cheers, SNL or Weird Al references. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These aren't "random trivia" or "anecdotes", but rather, superlatives and anomalies, of varying notability. For some of these, to disinclude them would be like disincluding reference to the existence of the unassisted triple play in baseball.  Certain circumstances in any game are rare but possible, and it's important to note if those things have ever happened or not.  Much of this content is easily citable by dint of its being published in reliable sources, like the Richmond book.  I would, however, agree that this mostly or all constitutes footnote material, so if you think it will improve the article to get it out of the way, I'll move it there accordingly when the page is unlocked.  The identification of the numbering disparity in particular is essential for computing the number of episodes in the infobox.  I can't tell you how many times I've reverted incorrectly computed updates to the infobox.  If you're going to insist it be removed from the page, I'm going to insist that if nothing else, it remain as an HTML comment in the article's code.  No one will ever get the episode number computations right if the information isn't to be found somewhere. Robert K S (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the 66 game disparity? I don't see one listed. The episode count is probably better suited as a sourced hidden comment in the infobox rather than in the actual article. The unassisted triple play has actually happened just as often since 1964 as the first four bullets I listed above combined. It seems that the UAT has a bit more notoriety than these few anomalies that have happened separately on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sottolacqua (talk • contribs) 2009-05-23T09:55:50
 * That reasoning is faulty for a multitude of reasons. As a percentage of games played, UAT frequency is infinitessimal, just as is the frequency of above-listed unlikelihoods.  "Notoriety" is not the point here nor does it have anything to do with threshold for inclusion, and if Wikipedia's knowledge were thresholded by relative notoriety, as you are proposing, it would have a couple thousand articles of only the subjects most people knew about anyway.  "66 game disparity" is an arithmetic deduction from the data.  Season 1 had 195 shows and 65 reruns given new numbers.  Season 2 had 195 shows but the reruns retained their original numbers.  Seasons 3+ had 230 shows, except one in Season 18 was not a game (it was a clip show).  65 + 1 = 66.  Does arithmetic require sourcing? Robert K S (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your sources for the above episode counts? Sottolacqua (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a source for this? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last chance before deletion—any sources?? Sottolacqua (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a source for the first $1 winner, along with the list of categories for the first broadcast of the show, as well as the first-ever "Final Jeopardy!" answer. This smacks of trivia, but is notable for being part of the very first broadcast. Opinions for where it should go? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it's trivia and therefore really does not belong in the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced info
The following edit requires a reference: A three-way loss has happened three times since 1984, the first occasion being on the second episode. Are episode numbers available for these three instances? Sottolacqua (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC) However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games... Anyone have a source for this? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still looking for a source...if not this should be removed. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last chance before deletion—any sources??Sottolacqua (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Season 1 began on September 10, 1984 and ran for 195 episodes (see Richmond). Season 2 began on September 9, 1985 with show #261. 260 - 195 = 65. The new episode numbers were for the benefit of affiliates that hadn't picked up the show upon its premiere but had put it on their schedules later after it was clear that it was garnering ratings in other markets. (As an aside, Season 2 also only had 195 episodes and its reruns were not given new show numbers. Starting in Season 3, each season produced 230 episodes and had six or seven weeks of reruns.)  If you're demanding a citation to some book that says exactly that Season 1's repeat episodes were given new numbers, I don't think you're going to find it, but that's inconsequential. This is an indisputable arithmetic deduction given known show numbers and airdates, and simple organization and synthesis of information is part and parcel of the work editors do here on Wikipedia. Robert K S (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You continue to present the same argument without providing any source information to backup your statements. Do you have a screencap of the slate for the Season 2 premiere that shows the episode number? I agree that math is indisputable, but the result is disputable when you continue to include parameters and variables that cannot be verified outside of your own arguments. I also agree that organization is key, but you have failed to present any form of backup to your argument after repeated requests (at least three here on this talk page) which lead to the removal of the information. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it is the episode number of the show aired September 9, 1985 which you dispute? Robert K S (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing the entire reference to the "65 count disparity." At this point any information that can provide a reference is helpful, such as an episode number for a repeat that does not match the original airing, the episode numbers/slates for the final Season 1 and first Season 2 episodes, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful. Please answer my question.  (Unless you also dispute the 195 episode count for Season 1, or you dispute the Sept. 10, 1985 premiere airdate for Season 1, or you dispute that Jeopardy! airs one new episode per day, on weekdays, when not on hiatus...)  What is the earliest post-Season 1 airdate/show number correspondence you are prepared to accept?  The rest is just a matter of looking at the calendar. Robert K S (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've requested editor assistance here. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only purpose for that would be to collect together an opposition gang in a power play, if you're not willing to answer the questions that would assist in proving the issue, which, as I said, can be reduced to a simple matter of looking at the calendar and working backward and forward from known and sourceable data. Season 1, 1984-09-10 - 1985-09-06, 195 episodes, shows #1-#195; Season 2, 1985-09-09 - 1986-06-06, 195 episodes, shows #261-#455, followed by 13 weeks of reruns; Season 3, 1986-09-08 - 1987-07-24, 230 episodes, shows #456-#685, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 4, 1987-09-07 - 1988-07-22, 230 episodes, shows #686-#915, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 5, 1988-09-05 - 1989-07-21, 230 episodes, shows #916-#1145, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 6, 1989-09-04 - 1990-07-20, 230 episodes, shows #1146-#1375, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 7, 1990-09-03 - 1991-07-19, 230 episodes, shows #1376-#1605, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 8, 1991-09-02 - 1992-07-17, 230 episodes, shows #1606-#1835, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns plus one week of reruns of Frank Epstein's regular games; Season 9, 1992-09-07 - 1993-07-23, 230 episodes, shows #1836-#2065, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 10, 1993-09-06 - 1994-07-22, 230 episodes, shows #2066-#2295, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 11, 1994-09-05 - 1995-07-21, 230 episodes, shows #2296-#2525, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 12, 1995-09-04 - 1996-07-19, 230 episodes, shows #2526-#2755, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 13, 1996-09-02 - 1997-07-18, 230 episodes, shows #2756-#2985, followed by 6 weeks of tournament reruns; Season 14, 1997-09-01 - 1998-07-17, 230 episodes, shows #2986-#3215, followed by 7 weeks of reruns;  Season 15, 1998-09-07 - 1999-07-23, 230 episodes, shows #3216-#3445, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 16, 1999-09-06 - 2000-07-21, 230 episodes, shows #3446-#3675, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 17, 2000-09-04 - 2001-07-20, 230 episodes, shows #3676-#3905, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 18, 2001-09-03 - 2001-07-19, 230 episodes, shows #3905-#4135 (#4088 was a clip show), followed by 6 weeks of reruns including the M$M; Season 19, 2002-09-02 - 2003-07-18, 230 episodes, shows #4136-#4365, followed by 7 weeks of reruns;  Season 20, 2003-09-08 - 2004-07-23, 230 episodes, shows #4366-#4595, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 21, 2004-09-06 - 2005-07-23, 230 episodes, shows #4596-#4825, followed by 7 weeks of reruns including the 3 final UToC games; Season 22, 2005-09-12 - 2006-07-28, 230 episodes, shows #4826-#5055, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 23, 2006-09-11 - 2007-07-27, 230 episodes, shows #5056-#5285, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 24, 2007-09-10 - 2008-07-25, 230 episodes, shows #5286-#5515, followed by 6 weeks of reruns; Season 25, 2008-09-08 - 2009-07-24, 230 episodes, shows #5516-#5745, followed by 7 weeks of reruns; Season 26, 2009-09-14 - 2010-07-30, 230 episodes, shows #5516-#5975. Robert K S (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've come here after seeing the dispute referred to on another page. Robert K S, I think you don't understand the point that Sottolacqua is making. You may be entirely correct in your calculations, but the problem is that you haven't given a source for the numbers you are using. The (to some confusing) point is that Wikipedia is not concerned with the truth, it is concerned with what is verifiable. See WP:VERIFY for a detailed explanation. Sottolacqua is not disputing the figures you quote, s/he is disputing where they come from. I hope this helps.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered Robert K S's question in my response 18:37 5 August 2009. If you present a reference that states the number for the episode aired September 9, 1985 is 260 (variable X), because the reference already provided states that season one ran for 195 shows (variable Y), obviously this will show that X - Y = 65(Z). So far there has been no reference provided to determine X, which then negates the validity of Z, the resulting 65 count disparity. The episode counts of and reruns during later seasons are irrelevant in determining that the summer reruns between the season one final episode and September 9, 1985 were given new episode numbers. A source showing the number for episode aired September 9, 1985 is 260 will provide a sufficient reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you guys are having a problem understanding this. It may be because you haven't tried working through the issue for yourself.  A reference showing "the number for the episode aired September 9, 1985 is 260" isn't strictly required, because any date/show number correspondence thereafter is equivalent given the calendar and the constriction of one show per day.  There is nothing "truthy" about this issue.  The Richmond reference, the calendar, any post-Season 1 data point, and the ability to count are all that are required for verifiability. Robert K S (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not all that is required for verifiability per WP:VERIFY. Please review the article and note that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have provided no reliable or published source for the episode count disparity and no source for the episode number of the September 9, 1985 episode that shows "260." Additionally, you have provided no additional or supportive "post-Season 1 data point" that would provide a sufficient reference to mathematically calculate (i.e., provide a verification) your proposed result.
 * Also, please review what constitutes a reliable source and note that a calendar and editor testament is not sufficient. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is tantamount to saying that a figure's year of death cannot be added to an article if only the figure's birthdate and age at death are sourceable. Calendrical calculations should not require sourcing (except in exceptional circumstances, such as a change in calendar, but that's not an issue here). Robert K S (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that you still have provided no proof that the repeat which aired June 10, 1985 (the first repeat airing during the summer production break) was marked as episode 196 or that the episode which aired September 9, 1985 is marked episode number 260. Additionally, an individual's date of death can be sourced through news media reporting on that individual's passing on the day in question, or through other historical records or verifiable accounts. You continue to merely present methods of calculating spans of time rather than actual verifiable information that your claim of a 65-episode count disparity exists. The issue in question is not whether there are 65 weekdays between 6/10/1985 and 9/9/1985—the verifiability of what you claim the episode number for any show aired within that period to be is the information in question. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding this. Season 25 just ended with show #5745.  Seasons 3-25 had 230 shows apiece.  That's 23 seasons having 230 shows.  260 + 195 + 23*230 = 5745.  To add up to 5745, Season 1 had to have shows numbered up to 260.  But Richmond specifically says that Season 1 had 195 shows, just like Season 2 did.  It is not necessary to have a reference proving that "the repeat which aired June 10, 1985 was marked as episode 196 or that the episode which aired September 9, 1985 is marked episode number 260".  All that is needed is the Richmond reference and any other post-Season-1 data point.  So I ask again, what is the earliest post Season 1 data point you are willing to accept?  When you answer that question, I will add the reference. Robert K S (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The question at hand is not whether X + Y = Z, the source for X and Y are being questioned. The following information has been stated by you without a source: You continue to present that Season 2 had Y number of episodes, Season 3 had A number of episodes, Season 4 had B number of episodes and so on, yet you also continue to provide no backup source other than saying "look at a calendar and add it up." Also, you state that "[you] ask again, what is the earliest post Season 1 data point [I am] willing to accept?" This question was answered 18:37, 5 August 2009 when I responded "an episode number for a repeat that does not match the original airing" or "the episode numbers/slates for the final Season 1 and first Season 2 episodes." Sottolacqua (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reruns for Season 1 were given new episode numbers
 * Season 2 had 195 shows
 * Seasons 3-25 had 230 shows apiece
 * Season 25 just ended with show #5745
 * Additionally, you have not yet acknowledged the need to comply with WP:VERIFY and what constitutes a reliable source Sottolacqua (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "...yet you also continue to provide no backup source other than saying 'look at a calendar and add it up.'" I've provided Richmond, which gives the numbers of episodes.  We've argued about this enough.  You seem not to be interested in realizing that from the given information, which is verifiably sourced to Richmond, the problem is reduced to a logical arithmetic proposition. Robert K S (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where (page #) in This is Jeopardy: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show (Richmond) are the 195 episode counts for season one & two and 230 counts for season three and beyond stated? This needs to be included in the reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Richmond gives episode count information on page 188. Robert K S (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eisenberg also talks about Season 1 episode count and 13 weeks of reruns, and how the season was extended from 39 to 46 weeks in its third season, on pages 30 and 106, respectively, of his first edition. Eisenberg also credits the third-season expansion of the Jeopardy! season to Alex Trebek. Robert K S (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--this is exactly the type of reference I was requesting. Add it in and remove the tag. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing
Do we really like "final round, Final Jeopardy!"? My adding "called" in there is not the best phrasing ever, but I think it's at least an improvement over the odd phrasing that's there now, especially considering the capitalization and punctuation of the name of the round. Croctotheface (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about italicizing the names of the round? Sottolacqua (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Shows in One Day
Jeopardy would have viewers believe that each show tapes on a separate day. This is not the case. A three-time winner, for example, may have won his title three times in one day, a feat more difficult than having won on three consecutive days. This fact should be mentioned in the article itself. 68.3.136.163 (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost every single game show in the history of television has taped multiple episodes per day. The challenge to continue winning has no relation to whether the contestant tapes one episode over five days or five episodes in one single day. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming it can be sourced, I'm not sure whether to call this something that should be included in a production-related section or an item that should be included in a different article of some sort. That said, I agree with Sottolacqua: Winning several games in a single series of tapings is a moot point; a good player will win nonetheless. I'm not sure an reliable article exists explaining the difficulty of winning a game over a series of days or multiple shows in a single day, even then, it isn't really relevant to this particular article (maybe a different article, but not this one). Briguy52748 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense should tell you that playing and winning three or four games in a single day is far more demanding than winning one game. Each new set of contestants that come on the show to challenge the sitting winner is fresh.68.3.136.163 (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That has no relation to your statement about taping several episodes in one day. Originally you stated that "a three-time winner, for example, may have won his title three times in one day, a feat more difficult than having won on three consecutive days." In either of those two scenarios the champion is facing the same number new of challengers on each episode. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems
Most of the gameplay section is unsourced — while most of it is indeed akin to a plot summary and doesn't really need a source beyond the show itself (WP:FACTS), I think that some of the lesser known facts (e.g., $5 being the lowest possible wager for a Daily Double) should be cited. Furthermore, there are large chunks of text throughout that are unsourced, such as the sections regarding the Fleming versions, the episode status as a whole, and the impact on culture. More references are definitely in order all around. I think that some sections are overly wordy as well, but I am not good at summary style and would appreciate if a good copyeditor would help me remove any possible detritus. (Furthermore, do we need two slate images? Or even one? The slate image doesn't add anything.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Broadcast History section can easily whittled down with the bulk of it merged into Jeopardy! broadcast history. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have inserted a sample question — one referring to George Washington — to help illustrate the wording of the answers, and the reply expected of the contestants (for a reader who might be unfamiliar with the game and could find such a statement helpful in understanding the game's concept). Aside from that, do you think that we need to include how the researchers and question writers were expected to submit questions for the game; I do have a source for it if it is desired, but I won't bother typing it if anyone considers it too intricate of detail.
 * As far as the gameplay section goes — one area that has been criticized by some editors as too detailed — I agree that it is a little wordy, but I'm at a loss of how to consolidate it without detracting from the article. Again, we as editors ought to explain the game in such detail so that all bases are covered and such. Briguy52748 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)]]
 * Secondary to this discussion, I have moved the sample question inserted by Briguy52748 into the Phrasing section since it more closely relates to that rather than it's previous location. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Briguy52748 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)]]
 * I agree that the slates are unnecessary. I'll remove them. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Referring to the Broadcast History section being edited down, I have inserted a brief summary of the other versions that have aired. The more extensive version is available at the main article link (which was explained in the edit summary). The brief summary was inserted because readers may still want to get the gist of the other versions that have aired through the years, and if they want to know more, they can click on the link to find out more (and apparently, they'll find at the link essentially what was there previously). Briguy52748 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)]]

Computer contestant
IBM will use its Watson computer on the show--Billymac00 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New show format
If you've noticed, at the end of the show, though the champion still recieves their accumulated winnings, the second and third place winners now recieve $2,000 and $1,000 respectively. Should this be mentioned? --Coingeek (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's been the procedure for 8 years and it's already mentioned in Jeopardy!. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sottolacqua is correct; what is new is simply the displaying of those dollar amounts on the podium of each runner-up &mdash; that's why it seems to you to be a rule change, rather than the visual confirmation of an existing rule.Lawikitejana (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
Jeopardy! (Game show) → — Not sure why this page was moved as there is no need to disambiguate. Also, the new title has a capitalization error in "Game". Can an admin please move this back? Sottolacqua (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why User:Borisduck took it upon himself to move it, but I moved it back. No muss, no fuss. Robert K S (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy can mean anything. This is the TV show so thats why (Game) at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisduck (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeopardy! — with the exclamation point — isn't exactly in need of further disambiguation; yes, there are the board and video games, but they're obviously adaptations. Borisduck's concern seems more appropriately suited for whether the disambiguation page for Jeopardy (without the exclamation point) should displace the redirect at Jeopardy — but I don't really think it should.  (And now the article is at Jeopardy! (TV Show), which has yet another capitalization error; that should probably be taken care of as well.)  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move protection
I have protected the project page and this talk page from moves for two weeks given the many recent moves and moves back. If a move is to be made, a discussion should take place. This can be done informally, or through the requested moves process. I personally see nothing ambiguous about this page's title though, and note that we do not normally add disambiguation to a page title unless there is confusion regarding the current title and another already existing Wikipedia article title (and even then, there may be a primary topic).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My recent shenanigans on the article
I just did a history merge on the Jeopardy! article, so its earliest edits could be easily accessible. It was rather complicated, so anyone watching this page while it was being history merged willl have the pages Jeopardy!/Temp, Jeopardy (disambiguation), Jeopardy (disambiguation)/Temp and Jeopardy (BBC TV series) added to their watchlists. Anyone watching the page Jeopardy (disambiguation) will have a similar experience. I'm sorry about the watchlist clutter. Graham 87 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First airdate of Trebek series
Here you have the premiere of the current Trebek run as having aired on Sep. 10, 1984. A book I own, "The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows, 3rd Edition" has the airdate being Sep. 17, 1984. Which is correct? Blozier2006 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Bryce L.
 * September 10, see discussion here. The Encyclopedia is something of an anomaly amongst resources, most of which cite September 10.  Possibly it lists the following week because in the L.A. market they did not air the first week of the show, and instead started airing it in its second week. Robert K S (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Podiums
Well, I could have explained the Jeopardy! podium rules better: This is not very reliable, because neither me nor anyone I know has been a contestant. Us441(talk) (contribs) 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Returning champions are always on the left.
 * 2) Contestant coordinators draw for the other two players in regular play.
 * 3) In the first game, the contestants drew numbers.
 * 4) In tournament quarterfinals and kids weeks, the podiums are done by surname.
 * 5) In tournament semifinals and finals, podiums are done by score in previous round.
 * 6) In early ToCs, podiums were done by previous earnings.
 * 7) I do not know the order the podiums are done in Celebrity games.

Re-orchestrated theme premiere
Regarding this edit, with edit summary "steve kaplan music used for seasons 25 and 26"—this is incorrect. The Chris Bell Music orchestrated theme premiered with show #5516 one Monday, September 8, 2008. Robert K S (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto this edit by an anonymous IP. Robert K S (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting off to sub articles - gameplay?
There have been quite a few AfDs of J related articles of late - and I thought I'd bring a bit of discussion here to the talk page about it. I haven't done any editing of the Jeopardy page, so forgive me if this is something that's been dismissed in the past - but has there been any discussion regarding spinning off the gameplay section of Jeopardy into a sub-article? I think it would be clear that it is an important and notable enough part of the show that it should be kept - and would most certainly avoid, or snow keep in an AfD discussion. It would also help to reduce article size so that more minor jeopardy nuances (such as the Clue Crew) could be included in this article without fear of deletion. This is just an idea, and as a Jeopardy fan, I would certainly be willing to help with any work involved in making this work - or in hearing any reasons why this might not work. -Addionne (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposal would help make this article more concise, and it's similar to the method used for Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) and Wheel of Fortune gameplay.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose: the result is foreseeable with crystal clarity. Sotto will open an AfD on the spun-off article. Robert K S (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What if...
If all three contestants finished with $0 or less at the end of the game on a post-2002 episode, what would their prizes be? Jonghyunchung (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If all three contestants finished with $0, no prizes are given. --Monterey Bay (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even the $1,000, $2,000, etc. runner-up cash prizes? Jonghyunchung (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a verifiable source for that? As long as it's a hypothetical question, it doesn't really matter, since it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all until it actually happens. JTRH (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange anon vandal
An anonymous IP editor seems to have made it his mission to adjust all the applicable Wikipedia articles to say that the Chris Bell rendition of the theme music/"Think" music was introduced this year, in Season 27, rather than at the beginning of Season 25. (Here are a few such diffs by the vandal on the Jeopardy! theme music article:   .  He's also at it here on the main Jeopardy! article: )  This is inaccurate, of course, as can be shown from the recordings of episodes and the end credits thereof. The IP vandal's edits have been reverted many times. Yet this IP vandal is not amenable to discussion of the issue. I will roll back this vandal's edits as I catch them, but I'm leaving this note here for the record. Robert K S (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this an urban legend?
I remember reading in a publication/media source that Jeopardy contestants are given voluminous reading materials prior to the show, on topics that would be asked on the show. I can't site a source at the moment, but I remember printing it many years ago. I just can't find it. --Inetpuppy (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if such a claim qualifies as an "urban legend" since I've never heard of it, but it's false. Reasoned discussion at
 * http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=002677;p=0
 * --CliffC (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The contestants are not given any forewarning on any categories being perpetuated. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To concur with the above, contestants are not given any information by the contestant coordinators or producers as to what material will or will not appear on the show, because (a) anything is fair game and (b) the show takes security and integrity very seriously since its success depends on maintenance of its spotless reputation. Robert K S (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What is Jeopardy?
Why isn't it explained that the answers always have to be given as a certain form of question and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyphant (talk • contribs)
 * Jeopardy!  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but as far as I can see that has nothing to do with the use in the actual show.  Tu rk ey ph an t 00:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reread the text in the quotation. "Why not do a switch, and give the answers to the contestant and let them come up with the question?" and "Griffin discarded his original name for the show, What's the Question?, after a network executive suggested that the game "need[ed] more jeopardies." There's also Jeopardy!.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that's not really what happens in the show as far as I can tell. Also, forcing a question often becomes nonsensical.  Tu rk ey ph an t 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * it has all to do with the show, the whole point is the question-to-an-answer. And if asking that question could not conceivably, often not even grammatically, result in the given answers, what's the point of forcing the question form? What they are doing is giving answers to questions, just that they have to obey a funny syntax. Could someone explain... well... why? --Sigmundur (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's also a rant about it. --Sigmundur (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a gimmick, and it can lead to some silly or awkward verbal exchanges, but without it, Jeopardy! would be basically indistinguishable from every other question-and-answer show in TV history, even if its material is more challenging than most of them. Yes, there are sometimes more than one possible question for each answer, and one possible answer for each question. So what? And to use an example from the rant you linked, I don't think "Q: What condiment are Colman's, Gulden's and Plochman's brands of? A. Mustard" trips off the tongue any easier than "A. Brands of this condiment include Colman's, Gulden's and Plochman's. Q: What is mustard?" JTRH (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "that's not really what happens in the show"... Chalk this up to the evolution on the show. The answer-question was much more rigidly followed in the early days of Fleming. Over the years, the format has been relaxed to permit for a wider variety of puzzles in the clues. Robert K S (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just that for someone introduced to the show now, it seems to make no sense whatsoever as the forced-question format is nonsensical for a large number of questions. This ought to be explicitly explained in the article, I feel.  Tu rk ey ph an t 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would one of the editors more familiar with this article care to add something explaining this in?  Tu rk ey ph an t 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a reference discusses the explanation I provided above, but I can't recall whether or where off the top of my head. I don't want to add any unsourced material to the article.  Also, although there seems to be personal curiosity about the issue—curiosity which should be quenched now—it's not a significant part of the show and probably doesn't merit a lot of explanation here on Wikipedia, which should be a more or less condensed representation rather than an academic treatise.  Anyone who wants to know what the show was like "in the old days" can find some Fleming clips on YouTube. Robert K S (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So ... what's the deal with Final Jeopardy?
The article seems to be missing something. It describes what contestants do in the Final Jeopardy round, and then it says that academics consider the round interesting, but it neglects to explain what actually happens in it. What happens to the bets? What is the significance of writing answers down with light pens? Why is all this interesting enough for academics to study it? Wikipedia should contain this information. (And I can't add it myself because I don't know what the answer is. That's kind of why I was looking it up on Wikipedia.) 68.33.168.195 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The process is straight forward described in Jeopardy!: "A category is announced by the host followed by a commercial break. During the break, barriers are placed between the contestants and contestants are asked to make one final wager (between $0 and their total score), writing it down. After the final commercial break, the Final Jeopardy! clue is revealed and read by the host. The contestants have 30 seconds to write a response, again phrased in the form of a question."


 * Earlier sections of the article (such as Jeopardy! and Jeopardy!) state that money is won/lost for providing correct/incorrect answers. It's implied that this is the same process in Final Jeopardy!. The instrument used to write a response (marker, chalk, light pen, etc.), although inconsequential to the action of the round, is mentioned in the text as well.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So why do academics care?  Tu rk ey ph an t 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got me. That line is in there as an anecdote. Remove it if you feel it's unnecessary.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have added a citation that explains the interest of game theoreticians now.  Tu rk ey ph an t 21:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That reference was added in December 2009 .  Sottolacqua  (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

[Fun Fact] A Fun thing
i read (Past) on Twitter that IBM's Watson (I think its a Super Computer?) will be there ECat200 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect game
First Round of Jeopardy before Double Jeopardy 6*(200+400+600+800+1000)-200=17800 After First Double Jeopardy 2*17800=35600 Second Round of Jeopardy before Double Jeopardies 35600+6*(400+800+1200+1600+2000)-2*400=70800 After second Double Jeopardy 2*70800=141600 After third Double Jeopardy 2*141600=283200 After Final Jeopardy 2*283200=566400 However, this probably constitutes original research, so it cannot be included in the article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Little Expressionless Animals" story
References in other media section does not contain a reference to the David Foster Wallace short story, "Little Expressionless Animals," in which a character named Julie Smith has a three year undefeated run on the show. Jeopardy is central to the story and DFW is a significant author--this seems like it should be included. Just wanted to ask about this before trying to add it myself. 98.21.247.97 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there any recognizable strategies?
In the Watson article someone has written that there is a strategy to finding the "Daily Double" ... this seems dubious since it's presumably random, unless it's not...

"The first round aired February 14, 2011. The right to pick first had been determined by a drawing, and went to Rutter.[15] Watson responded correctly to the first clue and then picked the fourth clue in the first category, a deliberate strategy to find the Daily Double as quickly as possible.[28] Watson's guess at the Daily Double location was correct. At the end of the first round, Watson was tied with Rutter at $5,000, with Jennings taking third place at $2,000.[15]"

28: Supposedly IBM chose the spots that had historically had a high number of Doubles. Sounds like going beyond what Watson was proclaimed to be doing / cheating.

Furthermore, watching the Watson events myself. It occurred to me that the square choosing process itself in pretty superfluous in terms of strategy, as all the questions are asked regardless of order, and everyone seems to have the same "advantages" in terms of answering each question.

It seems all and all like a game with little to no actual strategy involved in terms of game mechanics.

--72.173.160.50 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Daily Double positions aren't random. Robert K S (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)