Talk:What's My Line?

Editing to condense
I did a lot of editing to condense this article. In many places the writing style seemed excessively wordy, with trivial needless detail, repetitive facts, etc. I'm hoping I didn't step on too many toes as I tried to retain content. I did the editing in short stages so I could explain each change. Also I notice that there is language here that's very informal.

I also think the section "Syndicated revival (1968–1975)" is far too long. The status of WML comes primarly from the original run and not the later syndicated version. It may have had a decent run, but it doesn't deserve anywhere near this much detail. It deserves a couple paragraphs and certainly not details about set design and who designed it!! Even the section on "New Versions of WML" was long. I removed details about how To Tell the Truth has continued on, because why is that relevant to WML even if it is the "sister" show? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a good job in condensing. At one time, a lot of content was added in a less than encyclopedic manner and while some editing of it has been done, there still remained too much fluff. This is a move in the right direction. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the section on the syndicated version of the show was "far too long". For one thing, a lot of people like me -- I'm 62 now -- saw the syndicated version more than the original. Further, the syndicated version was on five nights a week (Monday through Friday). There were 876 episodes broadcast by the CBS network from 1950-1967. From 1968-1975, however, the syndicated version of "WML?" broadcast 1,315 episodes, more than the original show. The fact is, a lot of us were too young to stay up until 10:30 p.m. on Sundays to see the original show, but the syndicated show was on around 7:30 p.m. in many markets, to fill in the gap between the nightly news shows and prime-time TV, and we were adults by then and could watch it. Toddabearsf (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the comments you are responding to are over five years old. I don't think disagrees with you that the syndicated show is worth documenting. The size of the section on the syndicated version has been consistent now for a long time. In 2009 editor BashBrannigan was doing excellent work in removing redundant and irrelevant material from the article and addiing well-sourced information, working to bring it around to the much better article seen today. I don't think anyone in 2014 wants to shorten the syndicated section, although it would benefit from more carefully researched and documented writing. Cheers,Markhh (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Improving Style
I thought I should clarify recent edits. If anyone feels I've done wrong on anything, please let me know. Too much of the style seems to be a succession of point-form and excess detail. I’m not much of a writer, but I’ve tried to keep the content but make it more integrated instead of point-form. With the excess detail, too much detail is needless and boring and should stay in the source material. For example, if specific dates are given, then it should be in the case of significant dates; when the show began or ended, but not when it switched from Wednesdays to Thursdays. Or, is it important that Ernie Kovaks was on the show for 9 episodes? If we’re going to include that, then there is a lot more far more interesting detail that could be added. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I should make special comment on my last two edits on the Standard, Mystery rounds and the Syndicated version. It would appear there were massive changes, however it was just a re-organization. With minor exceptions, all content has been retained. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the issues dealing with tone/style. I've worked on improving the style of the article, to make it more encyclopedic and believe this issue has been mostly resolved. However, if anyone feels there are still problems in this area, please express specifically where improvements can be made. If memory serves it was Wildhartlivie who added that Article Issues so their input would be welcome.

It seems to me the problems with the article made still be length and some content. I do believe the section on the syndicated version is too long, but I'm uncertain as to how to shorten it.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I made another major reorganization, but it is likely the last. I think it makes the article easier to read. The sections "US Versions" and "See Also" appeared to be "artificial". The material in both should be worked into the main article. This is what I did with the Radio Version info. It was also apparent that a new section could be created for WML post-1975. I moved 25th Anniversary special, Live Stage version, "Episode Status" and "That's My Line" into here (from the "See Also"). The only serious deletion was the "Front Page Challenge" reference in See Also. I was a huge fan of FPC but i can't see it's relevant to WML. I would welcome comments about this reorganization. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've made some marvelous improvements to this article, and although I haven't posted here about them, I've been watching as often as I could. I made some very minor style changes, mostly correcting punctuation placement (which needs to come before references), some italics, etc., but no content edits. I removed a couple of tags that were placed a long time ago by someone else. While a good article nomination might bring issue with the YouTube cites, unless you're thinking of that, I think they're helpful for anyone who wants to see them and don't take issue with them here now. I'd also note that there is a template for individual broadcast references if one were inclined to use them, but they aren't required. I removed a few cite tag qualifiers (asking for page numbers) that are probably not necessary now, they were placed for entirely different reasons due to an editor who worked on the page who is now blocked. It wasn't always clear what was actually in the cites that were placed at the time. I've also removed the header tags since the article doesn't run too long and a great many cites have been added. The remaining inline citation tags are fine for what's left. If you happen to have citation information about any of the books used for citations, those would be great to add to a Further reading section or just a Works referenced section in the References section. You've done some great work here, Bash. Congratulations! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

longest-running game show in the history
I've modified this restrict the claim to the US. The linked source only makes this claim about the US. There seems to be some evidence that it there are other longer running game shows in other parts of the world. I am not sure how the claim relates to other US game shows such as Wheel of Fortune, since What's my line was a syndicated show for 8 of 26year run. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

More on Citations
Why is there a tag on this article, when there are at least 53 references? Let us review the policy that Wikipedia sets forth for inline citation requirements. You do not have to place inline citations for each and every statement ever made in anyone's life. The only time it is required (which is opposite from what many believe it to be) are: ''1. Direct quotations. 2. Any challenged statement. 3. Any statement likely to be challenged. 4. Contentious material''. That's it! In addition to which, Wikipedia specifically states, "Wikipedia does not have a 'one inline citation per sentence' or 'one citation per paragraph' rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content..." I don't know what has happened, but too many out there have forgotten these rules and expect every single sentence to be sourced, which is absolutely incorrect. Here's the thing: The tag needs to be removed and anything that qualifies for a citation should be tagged instead. It is entirely unhelpful to tag the entire article saying more sources are needed when in fact what it may need are specific sources and no one can read your mind! For this reason, I'm removing the tag. Please feel free to tag statements that require citations instead. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You make some very good points (though maybe a little overly emotional). Thanks for posting. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

CBS Studio Locations
" The show was produced at CBS Studio 52 and, towards the end of its run,[specify] at CBS' Studio 50 (now the Ed Sullivan Theater) in Manhattan."

I'm not sure where the show was originally produced, but it didn't move to CBS Studio 52 until 1960. The first show broadcast from Studio 52 was on June 12, 1960, over ten years since the show premiered on February 2, 1950. It had to have been produced somewhere for the first 10+ years. After Studio 50, a.k.a. the Ed Sullivan Theater, was upgraded for broadcasting in color, several shows moved there, including "What's My Line?". The first broadcast in color of "WML?" was on September 11, 1966, and I'm reasonably sure that was also the first from Studio 50, especially since that date was not quite a year before the final episode on CBS was aired. Toddabearsf (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Syndicated episode count
There were actually 1,320 episodes. http://web.archive.org/web/20051104000155/http://www.matchgame.org/episodeguides/wml/wml7.html97.90.20.29 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on What's My Line?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141031211727/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMsqlCe5zk to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMsqlCe5zk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not working unfortunately. Says can't play because youtube account was terminated. Same for the original. Guess it doesn't work with youtube links? 8bitW (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

International versions
Would we be better off replacing the "international versions" section with a table, as at the article for the similar show To Tell the Truth? As it is now, the section seems a bit unwieldy. Moreover, it presumably be of most interest to readers of Wikipedia in other languages, who can get to their respective articles via the links on the left-hand side. What do you think? 8bitW (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on What's My Line?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150209230333/https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1380165_10154762358660521_5746693611526929555_n.jpg?oh=2071bea24642aeddbaad4a18cb435c8d&oe=54E3FB1C&__gda__=1425279013_3344408009abb6a0d5a22e67f1bc798e to https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1380165_10154762358660521_5746693611526929555_n.jpg?oh=2071bea24642aeddbaad4a18cb435c8d&oe=54E3FB1C&__gda__=1425279013_3344408009abb6a0d5a22e67f1bc798e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on What's My Line?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109032709/http://www.jkeith.net/myline/wml2005/celebrity_guests.html to http://www.jkeith.net/myline/wml2005/celebrity_guests.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on What's My Line?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25780
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506133245/http://www.oppetarkiv.se/video/7448815/gissa-mitt-jobb-1712-1960 to http://www.oppetarkiv.se/video/7448815/gissa-mitt-jobb-1712-1960

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

International versions
Are some international versions, with the British version an obvious contender, notable enough that they should be split into their own articles? Dunarc (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"Each panelist took those occupation cards gave each to the appropriate contestant (the ones who they thought had that occupation). " I've read this sentence several times and understand neither the semantics nor the syntax. Kdammers (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

CBS Acquisition
The article omits the acquisition of What's My Line? by CBS from Goodson Todman in the 1960's. CBS owned the show but Goodson Todman continued to act as producers under contract. This is reflected in the credits as "a CBS Television Network production in association with Mark Goodson and Bill Todman" replacing the former "Mark Goodson - Bill Todman production". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.176.10 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Most Amusing Mystery Guest
Surprisingly, by far the most amusing mystery guest segment was the appearance of Salvador Dali, which was so funny that it has to be seen to be believed. I don't want to offer any spoilers but for almost every question, he could honestly answer "yes" because he was involved in so many different aspects of the arts. After a while, it became bizarre to behold for the studio audience as well as Daly and the panel. For example, when asked late in his appearance if he were a writer, he answered affirmatively to the audience's and Daly's surprise, visibly counting off the books he'd written during their quick whispered conference, then when Bennett Cerf asked if his company Random House had published any of the mystery guest's books and Dali answered "yes," pandemonium ensued. I'm trying to think of a way of obliquely steering our readers to that episode in the article since it's so noteworthily entertaining but haven't managed to do so. Racing Forward (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)