Talk:List of The Colbert Report episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1/10/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Season 2 column formatting

How come the lines for the continuation of S2 are screwed up? Can somebody fix that? I would myself, but editing the columns is crazy confusing. Also, why is there "Season 2 continued"? Why not just put them together? -- Kicking222 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC):

I dont understand what you mean by the lines being screwed up. Anyway, I was the one who split it up because the section was getting too big. I cut it in half but maybe we should cut it closer to the end and then when the season is over when can stick it back together. It's just annoying trying to edit the table when there is so much of it. --Bp0 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i have a question also about this why are the episodes labled 2001,2002... etc... shouldnt it be 201, 202...like every other series listed on wikipedia example: List of South Park episodes. after all 2001 would mean season 20, episode one. Barcode 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that it is because there will be more than 99 episodes this season and an extra digit is needed so that the episode numbers dont go into the 300's in the second season. Check the comments in the section "#Episode number mismatch" on this page. --Bp0 02:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily show episode guide

It is nice to see this up here. Wikipedia slowly becomes more than it is meant to be. I am glad for it. Would you be interested in a Daily Show episode guide as well? I would be pleased to help out.--80.131.103.176 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! You may run into objections, but there are good precedents for episode guides on Wikipedia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Daniels and Greg Behrendt

The interviews with Jeff Daniels and Greg Behrendt are just hilarious... Colbert at his best. --80.131.81.171 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better Know A District

Can someone link the Articles on the Congressional Districts featured on "Better Know A District" back to the main article, The Colbert Report? This needs to be done regularly (or at least as often as the segment airs). I'm not as diligent as I wish I were. For example, on United States House of Representatives, Georgia District 1, I included:

[edit] Upcoming dates

Okay guys... look at what is currently the bottom of the chart. The place where it goes dec. 1, dec 5, dec 1, dec 5...and see if you can figure out what it should be. I myself have no clue. Ezradf 04:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New format

I say the new format is bad. It's harder to read. It's more confusing. It may save space, but who needs to save space on the Internet? I'm going to change it back if no one tells me not too. If they do, we'll discuss it and see what happens. Ezradf 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I found the previous layout harder to read because it opened up big gaps in the rows just because of one column (Other Highlights). Now, the Truth Opening column gets more horizontal space, so that's another reason this new layout is better. So, yes, there's a reason to save space on the Internet. To make it easier to read. Nobi 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's easier to read. All the lines are nect to each other, with no space in between. The while space mad eit easier to read. Does anyone agree with me? Ezradf 04:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I hope I'm allowed to just edit this discussion and reply: I like the new style personally relative to the old one. However, to more *visually* distinguish between the two rows describing each episode, why not bold the whole first row (ie data word guest Truthy_intro) rather than just the word? --A. 3 Dec 2005.

[edit] Question?

Can anyone tell me in which episode Stephen did his impression of an old gold prospector, repeatedly shouting out "GOLD!", during the better know a district segment? It was notable because he visibly broke character by laughing at himself when the camera prematurely cut back while he was still doing the impression.

There was also another premature cut-back while he was doing the "Sounds of Ramadan" in the Ramadan vs Halloween edition of Stephen settles the debate. It's hard to say whether it was accidental or a running feature. Gallaghp 11:20, 9 December 2005 (GMT)
I think it must have been Rep. Mark Udall (D) of Colorado's 2nd District. Colorado is the only location of the five (or however many) that he's done that would have had a gold rush, and I think it was one of the later ones. I can tell you for sure it wasn't barney frank, because I missed that episode, and it wasn't Tubbs-Jones, because I saw that one twice and his talk about the district before hand made fun of that river that caught on fire, and all the immigrants and stuff. Ezradf 00:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Week off

I must have missed something. Why are there no new episodes of The Report this week (2/13 - 2/16), while The Daily Show isn't taking the week off? --128.205.218.25 13:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" do not follow the same taping schedule. There was at least one week last year where "The Daily Show" was on reruns, but Colbert was taping new material. --WikiPlayer 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's an excellent idea actually. There'd be periods you'd be without a show, but now we can mostly assume that if one will be down, the other will be up. It gets confusing though, if they play a rerun of the daily show because then it shows a different Colbert interview than what will come on next. Tyciol 08:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New shows, Threatdowns? Bears and Bees!

Did Colbert leave out the "bears" in the threatdown last night? John wesley 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I missed it, it's possible though. After all, aren't they still hibernating? Speaking of the threatdown, I loved episode 217. Bees! I wish I knew the exact words. That they would sting us to death and drag us to their hives to bribe the bears not to take their honey wasn't it? Tyciol 08:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode number mismatch

The episode numbers in this list do not match up with the numbers used on the Colbert Nation website. In this a mistake? --TreyHarris 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's other ways to number a show besides simple consecutive numbering which the Colbert Nation site uses -- the other common one is to do season#+ep#. So the first episode in the first season is 101, the first episode in the second season is 201, etc. I'm assuming the reason there's a discrepancy between the 100s and the 2000s is because the editor assumed the second season would have 100+ episodes. Nobi 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed them initially to reflect what Comedy Central uses on its schedule. In the first season, the episode numbers had three digits and now they have four. Incidentally, the Daily Show is up to five digits. Frozenpork 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-link the episode titles please

Unless the link points to an article about that episode, episode titles should not be links. Most of the titles are common words or phrases that have nothing to do with The Colbert Report and the links are just confusing. --squirrel 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Colbert Report does not have episode titles. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the show. -Silence 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, "Word of the day". On closer examination I see more good links than bad. I'll clam up and start helping. --squirrel 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up this page

If this page is going to continue (and of course, if it's not, it should just be deleted now), it should really be split up, as it's very, very long. I'd suggest having an article for season one, and then perhaps one article for season two (January-June) and then starting another article for season two (July-December). Or something of the sort. -- Kicking222 01:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is a good idea but we should wait until after season 2 is over. --Bp0 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should be split up with a separate article for each season that is linked to from the current page. If there is not any objection to this, I may do this. I'll give it a few days for any objections. --Kalmia 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When do their seasons start and end, with the calendar year? I think it's a good idea to split up into 6-month blocks. --Meadowbrook 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest that it be broken up aligned with the vacation breaks, but not all of them have a change in the opening adjective. For the record (since I checked), they are 12-15/1-9, 2-9/2-21, 4-6/4-17, 5-18/6-5, 6-29/7-10, 8-24/9-11. Maybe at the end of the season (around xmas?) the groupings can be quantitized. It would make navigation easier, but it could waste paper when printing.--Goldfndr 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add closing statements?

Does anyone think that we should add Colbert's closing statements to the table? We have his introductory statements on the table; I believe that his closing statements would be just as good. 64.252.202.233 00:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikiality" Episode

It's a mess up revert right now. Also the summery section is overdone IMO. It is too detail and redundant to "wikiality" section in "The Colbert Report" main article. I think the summery should be only... just a summery. Deatail should be link to main.--Samic 06:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality was removed from the main page. --Bp0 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
we might never know will it comes back like "truthiness". Not to mention if it wasn't appropriate enough for main page in detail, why would it be appropriate for just a summary? The layout still broken since your revert, Bp0.--Samic 06:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, truue but it can be here until that comes. Also, I didnt notice that it was still broke until after i reverted but by then it had already been fully locked. I'll try to fix it now. --Bp0 06:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's fixed now. Relocated the notes reference to better suit the description. Not that I like the wordy summary but let's see what will happen. --Samic 07:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed a sentence that is overly complex when not delivered in context and is an in-joke from a previous episode. The summary is still too long. --Meadowbrook 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The summary is not too long, and it's missing the tip/wag segment. Most of the summaries should be longer and more descriptive. --Bp0 01:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also missing the Mel Gibson riff and the interview, both which actually made bona fide news. There's definitely more that can be said about the episode. JDoorjam Talk 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree more can be said about the episode, but I think less can be said about the word segment. It seems like blatant self-admiration on the part of wikipedians. The Word segment can easily be summarized in two sentences and not provide a paraphrased transcript. --Meadowbrook 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another comment about "Wikiality"

By the way, just thought I may as well point out – probably just a wild conspiracy theory or something, but surprised no one else thought of it earlier – if it actually was Colbert vandalizing the articles, wouldn't it technically be possible for him to have done the actual editing before the show, and then just done a few "fake" keystrokes and whacked "Save page" during filming? It shouldn't be too hard to do something like that, I've done it before on my own MediaWiki-powered site – not that I have a TV show or anything, but if I'm working on something, have to switch to something else, and then save it later. And assuming that his laptop actually was powered on, it wouldn't be very hard to leave the browser running and ready to go, even my old 1997 Micron XPE could do that!

Just figured I may as well point out on behalf of all the conspiracy theorists out there ;-)

multima 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the Wikipedia shot on the episode is showing Firefox with several tabs open – entirely off-topic, but may as well mention anyway. -- multima 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What conspiracy? And even if Colbert had edited an article, so what? It's amazing how everyone is missing the whole point. The whole thing was a satirical critisism of wikipedia. It also exposed the blind ignorance of the wikipedia zealots in the way they responded to it. My favorite parts of this were the threats to kill or beat-up Stephen Colbert that filled the #wikipedia IRC channel the night of the broadcast, and when the re-run came on and everyone intently watched the wikipedia bit again, only to quote the exact phrase that colbert used when he had instructed people to "vandalise", completely missing the content of the crtisism. No one had any response to the critisism itself, only empty threats. Wikipedia is by nature truth detirmined by consensus, so if Colbert builds a consensus that elephant population has tripled in the last six months, then it should be allowed on wikipedia. The admins who blocked the elephant page are working against the nature of the project, and are enforcing their version of truth. An abuse of their power. Stephen never told anyone to vandalise anything, he said he heard somewhere that elephant population has tripled, and told everyone to go add that to the elephant page, which is about how 90% of wikipedia is written anyway. That was the point of the satire. --Bp0 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't implying any specific conspiracy, in this case I was just using the phrase "conspiracy theory" because I couldn't think of "crackpot idea that everyone, including myself, knows for a fact is likely the furthest thing from the truth, but would be fun to post anyway" – what can I say, I tend to have a kind of weird way of explaining things sometimes, you know? (By the way, I guess I'm not a Wikipedia zealot – I missed the episode on TV, but I think that show's great, and the part I did see I thought was hilarious... although then again, I enjoy jokes at anyone's expense other than my own, I'm weird that way :-) — Martin Ultima (multima)   •   talk   contribs   leave message 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking this here (and I'm sorry to beat a dead horse)because I doubt I'll get a response on the wikiality page (which redirects here). But Wikiality is a concept that existed long before Colbert coined that specific term for it- that is, the idea of a reality based on collective belief rather than facts or empirical evidence. The fact that the word "wikiality" is somewhat slanderous to Wikipedia doesn't change the fact that it's a valid idea, even if it isn't valid when applied to Wikipedia. What I'm basically saying is that an article should be written about it rather than just redirect it here. I'm happy to do it myself, and obviously if it can't be refined to usefullness it can be deleted. When I googled it I got around 200,000 hits (I won't post a link/screenshot, as that caused a discrepency on the wikiality talk page- just do it yourself it takes 5 seconds). But even if it only mentions the pop-culture aspect breifly, I think this can be a useful article. Any objections to me attempting to write a first draft for this article? --Elbow 03:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Elbow, I searched for Wikiality and was disappointed that it was a redirect to the Colbert Report. I agree that this is an interesting concept that should be further expanded. While it may not always be directly applied to Wikipedia, it could be the catalyst for a concept that is anchored in the new status quo that has arrived at the hands of technology. A new collective knowledge is now accessable to the masses, complete with its own terminology and ideologies. Someone with a social science background should help draft this entry.
I was disappointed too. It should be expanded on an own site. --89.57.26.245 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll third this motion. The very idea that a concept as influential to the sum of Wikipedia as Wikiality not having its own page is beyond sad, it's hyper-hypocrital. Are we going to keep taking our bat and ball and running home every time another kid hits a home run? We're not here to play baseball, we're here to report on it. Wikiality needs it's own page. If not it just goes to prove that Colbert is right and that we're just a pack of populist cowards. I am no coward, sir, give Wikiality its own page.
I also think wikiality should have its own page. As others have said, just because Colbert coined the phrase doesn't mean it's a brand new concept. Also, though Colbert talked about it exclusively in the context of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it only relates to Wikipedia. At the very least it relates to all publically accessible wikis. After all, it's called wikiality, not wikipediality.
Actively preventing thousands of people from swamping the elephant page with bogus information is one thing: restricting the creation of a page because it's critical of, among other things, Wikipedia is something else. --Careax 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the idea that Wikiality should have it's own page. It's a very interesting concept by itself. ThexPhilosopherx 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)ThexPhilosopherx

[edit] WikiProject List of Television Episodes compliance

I'm trying to follow the suggested episode list structure of WikiProject LOE. I changed Season 1 table to see if that's a good idea.(*ok, just know that the color divider can't be seen in IE) . Now I got an example in my sandbox, What do you think guys? --Samic 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should know that the format of the Episode list have been changed (cough cough... by me). Although the new episode list template might not be as customizable then the old one, IMO it's more intuitive than the old scheme. Here is an example:

{{Episode list (no image)
|EpisodeNumber=   //Episode nubmer
|ProdCode=        //Production Code
|Title=           //"word", will Auto-Quote and Auto-Bold
|Aux1=            //guest name
|Aux2=            //Intro Phase, *notice* will NOT Auto-Quote
|OriginalAirDate= //Air Date
|ShortSummary=    //word summary
|LineColor=       //For season color indication. IE can't see line color yet. if leave blank default value is "CCCCFF"
}}

of couse there are pros and cons.

Pro: All you need to do is fill in the fields and that's all. Data fields are easier to extract in word processor. Wikipedia is going to standardize the LOE sooner of later we need to do that anyway.

Con: Fields can't be moved. Template is designed with screenshot in mind. Some fields are mandatory and some are optional, a blank in optional field will shift a whole row of cells. The Title is Auto-Quote, a "none" "Wørd" will still be quoted.

Please share your suggestion/opinion. Samic 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this format a lot. I think it will be easier to add clean-looking entries with this format. Thank you for making that change! - Nofactzone 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, the first example I've seen without actual titles. I'm from WP:LOE and I've done a lot of things with the templates, I'll see if myself or anyone can come up with any good non-complicated ideas that would take this list into consideration. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 1, 2006 Word

The word for August 1, 2006 was spelled "Uncool" at the reveal. Not until the end of the segment was it changed to "UnKOOL" (KOOL in all caps). The word needs to be changed to the spelling at the beginning of the segment.

[edit] Episode 2100 (2101?) - 8/8/2006

It looks as if Episode 2100 was completely skipped, as Comedy Central is listing this evening's show as 2101. Other than the main Comedy Central site, is there any way to verify the show number? Nofactzone 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about time to ditch the current episode number for the following reason:
1) It's a production code.
2) It's getting very confusing
3) It's not even used in colbertnation.com recaps, which is an official TCR website.
I suggest we should start using Episode number system like tv.com, colbertnation.com, and itunes.. --Samic 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Although ColbertNation.com is an "official" site, using it for reliably obtaining information on a timely basis is a very bad idea. It seems to only get updated every week or two, which means if there is a change in numbering systems we may not hear about it for days. TV.com's numbering system, which looks identical to ColbertNation's setup but actually is updated on a regular basis, might not be a bad way to go. iTunes might be a better idea, but I haven't checked the data to see how it is stored or cateogorized. I'm still leaning towards CC's official numbers as listed on their site, though. Nofactzone 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I just check the iTunes... If memory serves they used to use the production code and then changed to episode number, and now they only use the date instead. Still TV.com and the ColbertNation seems identical, I just included them both now. Samic 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like now it is listing yesterday's episode as 2100 and today's as 2101. (sigh) Nofactzone 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that these changes were made. It does look good. I support the changes. - Nofactzone 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 133 correction

It is said that in Episode 133 according to Wikipedia that this is the first time Stephen Colbert acknowledges the bullets in the Word, when he actualy does in Episode 132. Colbert is talking about how he was to young for either the Korean or Vietnam War, I forget which, and how he was to old for the Gulf War, the bullet than reads "27's to old??" and he addresses the "bullet" by saying "Shutup." So he first acknowledges the "bullet" in Episode 132, not 133.

I know I've seen him address the bullets before. For example, in Episode 27, "The Wørd" starts out as "Hell Yes!" and quickly switches to "Hell, No!" when Colbert stares at it. I've also seen him acknowledge them before, saying "That's right, bullet!", although I can't think of an instance where he does this off of the top of my head. I don't believe this information needs to go in the episode guides. - Nofactzone 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TekJansen.com Link

I know I've added the link back in a couple times, but the site is more legit than ever. Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure may be an "unauthorized fan site", but it has extensive Comedy Central videos, links and advertisements. It's obviously an endorsed or authorized project by this point, the perpetual removal of this link is now not so relevant. Besides, read the fine print on the front page if you're still doubting it.

[edit] Problems with new table format

I noticed the switch to the new table format. A problem that I noticed is that whenever an episode doesn't have a Wørd, the table implies that the Wørd is actually "None". It automatically appears in boldface and with quotation marks. C. M. Harris 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's because "the Wørd" is the "Title" field of the template and "Title" isn't supposted to be empty. Quite frankly, I don't even know is it the right way to do. If Stephen Colbert stop doing "the Wørd" bit, we might need to rearrage certain fields once again. One key benefit of the new format is that it allow much cleaner format for the ease of extracting information. When that really happen, the effort of modification would be minimal. Actually, if you look closely there are some inconsistances all over the place. Sometimes it is None, other time there is "". I think we should come to a consensus of whether we should use "None", "N/A","---", or "" Samic 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a link to a footnote reading "There was no 'The Wørd' segment in this episode" would be better than "None", "---", or the like. C. M. Harris 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too... like you said, the way it is implied that the Word that episode was "None." A fix of some sort is in order, if for no other reason than that is the Word actually ever was "None" we'd be unable to show that easily.--Hawkian

Well, the unique nature of this list has lead me to believe that a custom template is in order. If something is not filled out it will still make a table cell, just blank. Do you guys want to stick to this column order or position some differently? {{Colbert episode list}} and the parameters are:

{{Colbert episode list
 |EpisodeNumber=
 |ProdCode=
 |TheWord=
 |Guest=
 |IntroPhrase=
 |OriginalAirDate=
 |ShortSummary=
 |LineColor=
}}

This is just what I threw up real quick, but the basic idea won't change. The template will be edited so that future updates to the LOE style will be applied, but won't break anything drastic (most likely minor technical changes). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening quote

Opening quote loses it's quotation marks somewhere around ep 184. List should probably be standardized either way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I added the missing quotation marks to standardize. It bugged me too. Thanks for the note. Lugnut215 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I think this article should be split like List of The Daily Show guests into:

Objections? Cburnett 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections, the article is far too long and messy. Raemie 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the individual lists to {{The Colbert Report}} as well. Cburnett 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color divider question/info.

I ended up adding the season 3 section/table, and didn't understand if season 2's color had been left blank because the dividers were added partway through the season, and it was easier to color season 1's dividers, or if there was a rule that previous seasons were such and such a color and the current season was left blank. In any case, I ended up leaving the season 2 dividers the same blank color, and made "FF4111" as the color for season 3. At least unless someone changes it. -- Viewdrix 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)