Talk:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Greatest Moments
- 2 "coordinates in conjunction"
- 3 We Interrupt this Week and the NPR/PBS confusion
- 4 Merger with Other Articles
- 5 "Select people who have appeared on the "Not My Job" segment"
- 6 Jimbo Wales
- 7 citation needed tags
- 8 Articles for deletion nomination of List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)
- 9 File:WaitWait.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 10 Criticism
- 11 What is the Format Actually Like?
- 12 Show length and "Bluff the Listener"
- 13 additional source for the article
- 14 External links modified
It would be nice to include a list of the show's great moments. For example, Madeleine Albright bragging about her ability to bench press, and the continuing series of faux pas over the area code of the devil last year. Uucp
I nominate the one about GWB saying his greatest achievement of his presidency was catching a 7 lb-perch. Then the story got complicated... Wilsonbond 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some thought it was funny, others thought he was probably right. Wahkeenah 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There was an awfully amusing time when the song "She's Gone" was played, and a contestant had to answer who the song was in reference to. The correct answer was Harriet Meyers, whose nomination had been recently withdrawn, but the contestant answered Rosa Parks :( . Googleaseerch
"coordinates in conjunction"
As far as I know, NPR and PBS are seperate entities, with some natural crossover. Is this sentence erroneously trying to claim that they are the same entitiy, or is it saying PBS has a hand in coordinating only this program? I'm afraid I can't tell what the message was supposed to be well enough to correct it... ~CS 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incoherency seems to be only one of its problems.
- My read is that the writer is trying to claim some sort of direct connection between PBS and NPR -- a common mistake -- but a bigger concern is the claim that WWDTM is based directly on this earlier TV show. I've never heard this nor of the show, and I'd like to some outside source for it.
- I've removed it pending a cite (like, say, a Doug Berman interview saying so). --Calton | Talk 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We Interrupt this Week and the NPR/PBS confusion
I apologize for the confusion. What I was attempting to say was that NPR and PBS are linked in some way. Also, "We Interrupt this Week" was a PBS game show that I read about in "The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows: Edition 3" and it had almost the same exact premise of WWDTM and it was carried on public broadcasting and since WWDTM is carried on public radio, I inferred that the shows must have some connection yet it was only an inference, so I think it was safe to delete it.
Merger with Other Articles
Rather than merge this page with others, it would probably be easier just to create a category for Wait Wait Don't tell me in general
"Select people who have appeared on the "Not My Job" segment"
Why do we have this section? It adds little (nothing?) to our understanding of the subject, and it can never practically be complete. Uucp 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is also getting larger by the week. Perhaps this should at least be a separate page, so it doesn't keep growing and taking over the page here? - Corporal Tunnel 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I say we just prune it for notability. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- We had just such a page (as a list) — I created it. It got merged into this article because I hadn't taken notes on who showed up for long enough for it to be much of a list. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should un-merge the list from the article, now that the list has grown unwieldy. I think the process of merging in the first place was mostly adding stuff here and making a redirect at the site of the former list. If this is the case, than common sense would dictate we simply overwrite the redirect with a cut-and-paste from the current section. Of course, common sense isn't common in the real world and is less so online (and arguably less so on Wikipedia). — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Two-thirds of the article is now this worthless list. It should be given its own article, or converted into a category that tags the various people listed. Uucp 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure any such catagory would be deleted, because of lack of notability. This isn't the sort of thing that catagories are for. An appearence on WW,DTM is not something that should be appearing in the articles for each person who has appeared -- it is a very minor aspect of their careers. A new article might work if it were comprehensive -- but an incomplete list may just get deleted or merged again.
- As much as I like this show, I don't feel like a list of guests is encyclopediac content. I would prefer the list be culled for notability, or eliminated alltogether. ~CS 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And at least two editors, myself and whoever posted it originally, think it is just fine. So I have posted a message on Mr. Wales' page and asked him to present his opinion here. Wahkeenah 01:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- He is already listed in the section Select people who have appeared on the "Not My Job" segment. The bulleted paragraph for Not My Job in the body of the article should briefly illustrate what the segment is. There are many other much more well-known guests with more memorable appearances. Not that Jimbo's appearance was uninteresting, but adding it on there does little to enhance the description of the segment of the show. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- While it's of minor interest to Wikipedians, the inclusion seems kind of superfluous when the article is presented by Answers.com or any of the other many, many Wiki-mirrors. The addition as it was written basically stated: "...And Jimbo was there, too." It may be noteworthy enough to appear on our article on Jimbo Wales, but he wasn't so noteworthy a guest that he bears separate mention in the article outside of the list of other Not My Job appearances. (t)⁄(c) • 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- All the more reason to have some reference to Wales in there, so that blind-ripoff sites will advertise his name. If it's already elsewhere in the article, maybe it doesn't matter. At any rate, I don't much care about this triviality any more. Wahkeenah 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i have removed the fact tags for items that are either self evident and/or are verifiable by listening to the show.
- An Internet Destination Called Carlslist
- self evident you won't find any before the date specified.
- NPR Geek Game
- just how is something 'not happening' verified?
- Wait Wait... Television
- self evident you won't find any before the date specified.
- Live audience at Chicago's Chase Auditorium in the Chase Tower
- self evident you won't find any before the date specified.
- All of those are excuses for violating the foundational Policy No original research. There can be exceptions to policy, but these fig leaves do not remotely approach adequate grounds for that.
--Jerzy•t 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) for deletion. Opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns.
In light of the fact that, in previous discussion (see above), editors suggested breaking out a list of WWDTM guests in a separate article, those who view and edit this article might want to weigh in on the proposed deletion. (From my point of view, the reasons for proposing deletion are strange. It's especially strange that that article, in particular, is targeted for deletion, while the other eleven years' pages are apparently notable enough to remain. To remove only the year 2005 would leave a hole in the record for no discernible reason.--HughGRex (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
File:WaitWait.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:WaitWait.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 1 September 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
There should be a Criticism section. This article appears to be the product of advocates and enthusiasts. I know that there are people who have a negative attitude towards this show because I am one. I hope somebody will come forward to contribute such a section. Unfortunately, I avoid the show at all costs and so have only limited knowledge. What I would have to say would be limited to my view that it is a show produced by and for people who have essentially no sense of humor, low intelligence, a love for political and social conformity and for crude antics. I hope somebody can flesh out the negative aspects. ---Dagme (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the Format Actually Like?
I've never seen Wait Wait before, and I would like to see an actual description of the game show.
If I were to give the format of Jeopardy!, I would say "Three contestants each pick categories that contain questions they must answer, with each question worth a certain amount of money. The player that answers the question first gets that much money added to their score and picks the next question's category and value. A wrong answer has the question's value deducted from the player's score. The "questions" are actually in the form of statements and the contestants must "answer" them by forming questions, such as "Who is George Washington?" The player with the highest score at the end wins.
Show length and "Bluff the Listener"
Is the show really one hour long? I don't hear it on the radio but subscribe to the podcast, which is usually about 45 minutes. Current show is 46:15. (ETA: PBS and NPR shows tend to follow the 1/4 hour time unit model, i.e. all shows last 15, 30 or 60 minutes, with a bit of time reserved for interstitial announcements. 46 minutes doesn't seem to follow that model; if the show is an hour, that's a lot of time left for the interstitial announcements....)
Bluff the lIstener: Do the panelists really invent the fake news stories themselves? I have the impression that they are written by staff writers and just read by the panelists. JShook | Talk 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The show that airs is roughly 44-46 minutes, but live taping of the shows can last around 1 1/2 hours or more. The edited version cuts out a number of panelist questions and some of the Lightning round questions, along with any pick ups, redos, or recording of additional material to cover when things change between taping (Thursday nights) and airing (Saturday and/or Sunday). One example was the taping when Scotland was holding their vote for independence, they recorded a bit in case the vote went "Yes" and another bit in case the vote went "No".
- As far as I know, the (non-true) bluffs are written by the panelists and, over the years, common themes and trends can be picked out for each panelist. For example: Mo Rocca has used the surname "Bagnoli" a number of times, Paula Poundstone has used one surname multiple times, etc. --questionlp (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
additional source for the article
- https://web.archive.org/web/20090731041420/http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-090726-wait-wait-npr,0,2139904.story?page=2 — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. 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/20120810204334/http://www.bbcamerica.com/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/ to http://www.bbcamerica.com/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.