Talk:Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!

Greatest Moments

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)[reply]

Some thought it was funny, others thought he was probably right. Wahkeenah 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"coordinates in conjunction"

Omizzle77 recently added information about We Interrupt this Week. I'd appreciate a clarification of what the last sentance of his edit is supposed to mean:

"...as the first game show ever to be televised on the Public Broadcasting System, which coordinates in conjunction with NPR."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I say we just prune it for notability. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]