Talk:Jeopardy!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Television Game Shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to game shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Jeopardy! is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Conceit, not concept

Conceit is the proper term to use in the context of "The conceit of "questioning answers" is original to Jeopardy! and, along with its theme music, remains the most enduring and distinctive element of the show." Please do not change it to "concept". For more information about literary conceit, check out the wiki-link to conceit above. Andy Saunders 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 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. Collectonian (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? Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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)]]

[edit] 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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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. Collectonian (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? Collectonian (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)

[edit] 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)? Collectonian (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.

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).Collectonian (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)

[edit] 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. Collectonian (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.Collectonian (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. Collectonian (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Under WP:NONFREE#Images, 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#Images_2, "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)