Talk:Conan (talk show)

Title

According to the show's Facebook page, the title is The Conan O'brien Nightly Show

http://www.facebook.com/friends/?ref=tn#!/group.php?gid=23201543692&ref=ts

199.80.112.226 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That page is not official. Just a fan page. Hopefully after the tour wraps in a couple of weeks, TBS will announce an official name. Until then, I think we should simply leave it The Conan O'Brien Show. Mwhayes1995 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the official statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHeyO2W8aPU the title is Conan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.149.67 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cue card; huh?

Where exactly did this "cue card" come from? It hardly seems more acceptable than the title card available from TBS.   Thorncrag  02:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...I see this has since been answered on the article, thanks :-)   Thorncrag  03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly added "official" logos

This was done when it was speculative as "The Conan O'Brien Show" and now as "Conan." If there is no source, please do not add fan created logos. The only existing title card as of now is Conan's self created title. Thank you. Mwhayes1995 (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Late Night With Conan O'Brien always aired every weeknight.

I deleted the part in format that said that 'Late night with Conan O'Brien aired from Tuesday to Friday up until 2008'.  ???, this never happened, it aired on every weeknight from when it debuted in 93 until it ended. - Russell

Again, unless someone can provide a verified source or article that Late Night added Monday nights to the schedule in 2008, then it needs to stay out of the article because it is not true, I think someone is making this up for some strange reason. I clearly remember watching 24 on Monday nights since it moved to Mondays in season 4 which was in January 2005 and I would stay up and watch Conan at 12:35 on NBC. I also watched it on Monday nights before that for years. Please provide a genuine source that it was never on Mondays until 2008. What was aired in it's place? Even when Heroes was on they advertised Leno and Conan being on in late night and Heroes aired on Mondays for its 4 season run. This is an absurd and unverified claim and the NPR article says nothing about it either. - Russell

This was a long time ago, but with Late Night I remember that they used to always show a rerun on Monday, and then at some point they started showing five new episodes per week. I don't remember the details, nor do I have a source at the moment. But I remember Conan announced during one show that Mondays would no longer be a rerun. --Keith111 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there still needs to be a verifiable source because I clearly remember that his monologue on Monday's show for several years talked about the news that day, and it was definitely before 2008. Until a source can be added that no new shows were on monday nights until 08 it needs to stay out of the article. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.117.98 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it needs a source, and indeed 2008 is too recent. It happened before 2008. Also I didn't watch the first few years of Late Night, so it's certainly possible that they originally started out with five new shows per week, then switched to four, then switched back to five. The number of new shows per week could have changed any time Conan signed a new contract. --Keith111 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This had been re-added to the article, and I removed it once again. I have absolutely no memory of Conan taking off Monday night's shows. Maybe he had been pre-empted for a couple of Mondays, being a cause to notorize the following Monday being a new show? Mwhayes1995 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

IP has continued to re-add this information without source. I once again removed the information, citing no references. Mwhayes1995 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps reviewing the episode listings on IMDB would help? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005277/filmoseries#tt0106052 70.71.167.232 (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Mwhayes1995 is right, it was pre-empted by something or some such a long time ago for a period. Also, per IMDB link I think it's agreed to keep it 5-day.    Thorncrag  06:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First guest

Some background info and sources, at Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum. Enjoy! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing every show in the genre it beat in the Nielsen ratings that night

Stop. Wikipedia has a distinct policy against unnecessary verbosity. To say that the show led all late-night talk shows is sufficient for the purposes of this article. It is not necessary to specifically indicate every show in the genre. That's what PR people do to get digs into their competition and treads awfully close to violating NPOV. The only ones that need to be mentioned are the ones that directly compete with the show in the 11-12 timeslot (Daily and Colbert); the other shows have different time slots and trying to compare the different shows is like comparing apples to oranges. I did make a mention, that has since been removed, of how it fared compared to Tonight (with the margin of victory) because he used to host that show, but Kimmel and Letterman have different time slots and have no dogs in this race. They don't need to be mentioned. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment in keeping Tonight mentioned, and I've went ahead and removed the other two. Gage (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Giving reference - Turkey

I do not know how to give reference, but i know the reference : http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25150070/ this page is the referance. Can somebody make this the reference of In Turkey the program will begin airing on 22 November on CNBC-e ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuledBySecrecy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an english version of the article? Gage (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove most Tonight Show Conflict stuff

This article is about the TBS show, not the circumstances that got Conan off NBC and on TBS. Although that is part of the story of "Conan", and should be mentioned, the article currently spends too much space on the Tonight Show conflict, and should be edited. Milchama (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. It is relevant of course to show how the host of The Tonight Show ended up on TBS, but the section on The Tonight Show conflict could be shortened to focus on that Conan left NBC and had to stay off TV for a while. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the Tonight Show conflict information makes up a large part of the article is because there is currently not enough content to fill the rest of the article in great detail, due to the show only starting to broadcast three weeks ago. As a significant contributor to this article, I would oppose removing any of the information about the conflict until the show becomes established, and the conflict can be put into proper, or at least better, perspective. Gage (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's also a good point. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tonight Show information made sense prior to the show's launch. However, it is now on the air, and there is enough details about the show for this article to stand on. Milchama (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An outlandish statement like that doesn't even deserve a response. Gage (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

One shouldn't lower the Wikipedia:Relevance of content threshold in an article in the first place just because the article would look shorter otherwise; when presented with having a short article or having less-relevant material to keep it looking substantial, the right solution is for the article to be shorter. WP:NOTPAPER (though often used to defend long articles) actually notes that appropriately short articles are not a bad thing. In my opinion, a good deal of the section Conan (TV series)#The Tonight Show conflict can be removed, because the level of detail is already in other articles and is beyond what is necessary to understand this article's subject (the TBS show); if that leaves the article shorter, then so be it: the show has, as mentioned, only been on for a month, after all. What is important in one article could end up being WP:Fancruft in another. For example, the details about how the 2010 Winter Olympics schedule interacted with the The Tonight Show (when it actually turned out to be moot because everyone relevant to this TBS show was already gone), or exact quotes of Conan's position statements about what The Tonight Show is, might be important to a history of The Tonight Show, or to the 2010 Tonight Show conflict, but not to the TBS show itself. The summary that is relevant to the TBS show (this article's subject) seems to be: (1) Conan had late-night NBC shows since 1993, with similarity to the TBS show; (2) they ended because of timeslot issues (relevant because of Lopez Tonight); and (3) the terms of the NBC contract prevented him from having another TV show until at least September 1, 2010. One thing that might be more relevant (and isn't yet in the article) is TBS's scheduling strategy in putting Conan across from the local news, if WP:RS can be found. --Closeapple (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So how do we go ahead and take a vote? There are currently three paragraphs about The Tonight Show on this page, and I believe it should be cut down to one. Milchama (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My vote is Yes. Anyone else? Milchama (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Gage (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ratings column at List of Conan episodes

• List of Conan episodes

The ratings column at List of Conan episodes needs to be updated with sourced info. This article only includes Ratings info on the first and 2nd weeks of production. Could be expanded with additional and more current info. -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conan (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Free of serious stylistic errors, but uneven. There are what I assume are in-jokes (e.g. 'Friday is Taco Night') and references that assume a level of familiarity with the program (e.g. 'Richter continues his role as sidekick' - continues from O'Brien's previous program, yes? also reference to 'New sketches').

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is one 'Citation needed' tag, which can probably be satisfied with some of the existing references. I was more troubled by reference to 'the established six-piece format', which is not clearly defined and not referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The section 'History', especially sub-section 'The Tonight Show conflict', goes a bit far afield. 'The Tonight Show conflict' as well as 'Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band' should be shorter summaries with the details left to the sub-pages. The sections 'Production' and 'International' are also a bit long and meandering, though perhaps not so much as to disqualify the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There have been some recent revisions, but these appear to be roving vandals rather than conflicts over content.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Is the screen capture of O'Brien and Rogen used under fair use really necessary for contextual significance?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold until 19 February 2011 pending minor revisions.

On hold until 26 February 2011; see below.

Update: 19 February

There have been a number of edits in the past week, including the removal of what I thought was an inappropriate joke. (The editor who removed it suggested it was vandalism.) The lack of focus, however, has not been addressed. Also unaddressed is the comment requiring citation (an assertion about the professions of the guests). Similarly, an editor removed two claims about the demographics of the audience which were not addressed in the reference cited. This causes me some concern about the appropriateness of the current citations, though I have found no specific problems.

The page seems to have become just slightly unstable recently. Unlike earlier changes, which I noted appeared to be the work of roving vandals, at least one set of edits (edit 414577259 and its subsequent reversal) suggest a difference in point of view on which it may be necessary to reach consensus.

I will review the article once again next week before deciding whether to mark the article as Good status. Comments on this question from other editors are also welcome. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I failed to set the review status to 'On hold' until today. The seven-day hold will therefore run from now. Cnilep (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit more work is needed

Thanks and congratulations to those who have worked on this article, including both those who have improved it since 12 February 2011 and all those who worked on it since the beginning.

Unfortunately, I don't think the article is quite up to Good Article standards just yet. There are still problems with focus and stability.

Two sections need more focus, while a third is very well focused. The section "The Tonight Show conflict" gives rather more detail than I think is necessary, given the full accounting at 2010 Tonight Show conflict. That said, I do appreciate the challenge of summarizing such a sizable account. Similarly, "Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band" gives nearly as much information about the show's band as the article Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band does. (That article is also filled with information on The Max Weinberg Seven and other bands from O'Brien's television programs.) On the other hand, the section titled "'The Legally Prohibited' tour" does a nice job of giving just the main points and directing readers to the article The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour.

The page actually seems to have become less stable over the past two weeks. I noted on 12 February that recent changes seemed to relate to vandalism and not to conflicts over content. More recent changes, though, suggest disagreement about the program's ratings and the significance of those ratings. Some editors have questioned others' neutrality in edit summaries. Some consensus will need to be reached on this issue.

Again, kudos to all who have worked on the page. The article is coming along, but will require a bit more editing and consensus on some content before it becomes a Good Article. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Conan Concert Series

Somebody should add some info on the ongoing Conan Concert Series. Instead of a regular musical guest in his studio, a nearby stage to his studio hosts a concert, and the show airs a song or two from it, with Conan up on stage introducing the band. Theres plenty of info on this on Conan's site. I simply think this info is relevant and should be added to this article. I won't add it myself as I wouldn't want to mess with the hard work that people have done on this article (in case you don't agree it should be added), and also because I'm not 100% sure I'd be doing it right. Cheers.

Arm gestures in opening

Is there a name for the arm gesture thing Conan does in the opening? I know he jumps when the band is done, but on many episodes he tucks his arms in and does this odd sort of drumbeat dance looking thing….I can't really describe it, but it seems to be a part of his shtick. Anyone know anything about this? 98.206.241.221 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)