Jump to content

Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older discussions

[edit]

The show was originally produced in England for Channel Four, but it caught the attention of comedian Drew Carey, who convinced ABC to air test episodes in the United States. The show was a hit, and ABC willingly kept Carey on as the show's host.

Is this one single show that moved from England to America, or is there both a British show and an American show based upon it? The text implies the former. --Brion 12
03 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)
IT was a series in the UK that was then shown on US' Comedy Central network, and re-done for U.S. T.V. I've clarified that point in the text. -EB-

Why was this change made? [1] The previous version and the new one are in opposition. Which is correct? Are the segments retapped or not? --mav

Moved from the article, posted by 64.156.134.122: (I've been to tapings, 2 1/2 hours of unrehearsed sketch, no repeats!)
--Nate

I am not sure if this matches with your experience, but in the current productions some games are repeated with different suggestions, but nothing is "retaped" to improve the quality. I have have tried to make this clear in the current article. Some of these re-played games have even been aired on special episodes when they create a good comic sequence. BarkingDoc
I was under the impression that multiple games are played at each taping, and the best are chosen to air -- I didn't think they redid the same games and chose the best, though I don't really know. Tokerboy

We need to include the names on the games on the show and how to play them.

In reference to the HTML comment about NBC or ABC, it's certainly ABC that airs the show. Andre 20:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks; the two articles I merged into this one disagreed on this point.
James F. (talk) 00:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Game Descriptions

[edit]

I'm noticing that the game descriptions are starting to get longer and longer ... incorporating more and more descriptions of particular instances of the games from various episodes. Is this appropriate? It seems to be getting less encyclopedia-like and more fan-webpage-like. (But I'm new around here ...) Jim Huggins 03:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about it for awhile ... I think I'm going to try and prune down the descriptions. Descriptions of personal favorite games certainly violates NPOV, and in the spirit of Be bold, I'm going to try it and see what happens ... Jim Huggins 15:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Prune away! with my blessing. Some of this is really over the top "X is usually hilarious in this game..." and that sort of crap need to go. A sentence should do for just about any one game. -R. fiend 22:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did my pruning way back in March, and the informality has really crept back in. I'm not sure what can save this article ... Jim Huggins 22:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that most of the informalities have occured in the Atmosphere section of the article. I think we should trim up once again and if the contributions from non-registered individuals contributes to the problem then we get that section or the entire article locked to registered users only. I think it might be best to eliminate the section all together and maybe put in a Trivia section, which seems to be the norm amongst most shows. In any event, I do not think we should give up on it. - Thebdj 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote this article, but it does not onc emention the fact that this show is based on theartesports, I think that should certainly at least be in the opening paragraph.

Why do they dress so FORMALLY? Wouldn't they be a lot more comfortable being so manic and active in comfortable casual clothing rather than slacks, collars, and ties? Hrmm..

The Atmosphere section has several examples of running themes in a single episode. Does anyone else think the size of this list makes it look a bit cruff-ish? I already cleaned up some of the perceived cruff from the game section. I wanted to find out what others though of the atmosphere section. I would not mind a few of the single episode running themes staying. I am just concerned leaving them all in opens the door for more and more. If anyone is really that interested in sharing information about individual episodes, we should do an episode only article, or a series of them, like other TV shows. (forgot my signature...oops) -Thebdj 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where to put this but on the subject of "Running Gags" Colin had another one that was a constant. Case in point "Irish Drinking Song" which is my favorite game only because of how Colin ends it. "Got Mugged" is a good one:

Ryan: Someday I'll write back Wayne: He is my best friend Charles: And now we both are pen pals Colin: He put my stone back in my end

Colin just had this way of just saying things that left Drew, the crowd, Laura and everyone in hysterics. He ran with this for the most part and this just stuck with all of the Irish Drinking songs from here on out.76.197.199.68 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)BigBoi29[reply]

Sketches

[edit]

I'd like to see the description "However, the show lacked the true stakes and competition of a game show." to something like "Whose Line is It Anyway parodied game shows competition by awarding points that 'don't mean anything' " I was thinking about how to clean up the Whose Line article. We have the common sketches and there are some single play sketches that are not listed. I think what we should do is have a rough breakdown of the show listing the opening and how the US and UK versions are different. Explain that several games were played with a rough average given for both the US and UK version and end with an explanation of the endings for the US and UK. This would sort of be ane expansion of the format section and a lengthened explanation of the show. Now instead of the common sketches on this page we will do one of the following: 1) We would have all the skethches in a similar format on another article with a bit more explanation of the games and some differences, if any, between US and UK versions of the game or 2) a list page with separate articles for each game (see The Price is Right). I prefer the first if any. This should make the page a bit more concise and also allow us to expand on certain aspects of the show without clogging down this article. Any thoughts? -Thebdj 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere

[edit]

I am still for this section being cleaned up. We need to avoid this article from becoming too much like a fan site. I believe that running gags from the US and the UK will be okay if minimized. Clive being bald, Colin being bald, ribbing the host, Ryan's shoes, height or nose, etc. I believe single episode ones are a bit less useful. At this point we cross into a fan site realm and people can gather this sort of information either from linked sites or by watching the show. Unlike my idea for games, I am basically going to hold this stand and if no one can provide me a good reason not to start hacking apart the atmosphere section, I will begin to trim it down and edit it to bring it more in-line with an encyclopedia entry. -Thebdj 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree the single episode list should be trimmed down a lot or removed altogether. It doesn't really add anything to the article. That list could go on endlessly, especially if people just continue adding their "favorite moments." Wavy G 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the comments on Clive Anderson being an early "Anne Robinson" is misleading. I think it is a misunderstanding of his humour. It's supposed to be dry at times, and I think whoever wrote the article has misinterpreted him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.50 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. This section portrays Clive Anderson as being serious about point distribution which he clearly isn't. Just because he doesn't say "The points don't matter" like Drew Carey in the US version doesn't mean they do matter. The quote "That was the best game we've ever played, shame this isn't a scoring round" should be clue enough that he is joking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review and changes

[edit]

Based on the peer review I have separated out the games and re-layed out the article a bit. Please do not revert back to the old page and let us work from here. The removal was necessary to return the article to some normalcy. I have ideas for the new page of games and they can be seen at that article. -Thebdj 03:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bad Choice

[edit]

Pretty crappy idea to shorten the article. Encyclopedia or not, people come here to be informed and as a Whose Line is it Anyway fan I've got to say the page of a few weeks ago with more information was a lot more practical and useful. Nebuchanezzar 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to be encyclopedic. All the information still exists in some way, even if it is spread out a bit (there is actually more information now). This is not a fan site. And it is important to remember this. If you want a place with way more information then a normal person can use then follow the external links to the whose line wiki or to Mark's Guide. I intend on there being an article for almost every game at some point which should include even more information on the differeneces between US and UK games. I am sorry you do not like the idea, but the consensus from the Peer review only made more people think that shortening the article was a good idea. There was TOO much information for the casual person seeking information, and if they are truly interested they can continue to read more on the separate pages or follow external links. I have posted here several time about possible changes and no one ever replied to them. If people do not add input, then stuff like this does happen on wikipedia. -Thebdj 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, encyclopedia or not, the former article was a great piece of information to a fan. Seeing as it's the casual fans of the show who'll be looking up these sorts of articles, it's in their interest which you should be operating. Nebuchanezzar 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have said and the peer review proved, the current article is most appropriate. I do not believe that casual fans will make wikipedia their first stop. I think the idea, as with a real encyclopedia, is to give people the basic information on the show in a concise and NPOV manner. All the material you claim was "better" has been moved to other pages wiki-linked to the main article. It is not that hard to find. The article was loaded with cruft and constantly being editted with new material from the most recent airings on ABC Family with some joke someone thought was funny. Sorry if you do not like the new format... -Thebdj 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation and format confusing in summary box

[edit]

In the summary box, under the headings "Original run" and "No. of episodes", the formatting and punctuation marks are confusing.

Specifically:

  1. The "Original run" section makes it appear that everything was Radio. ["TV:" is not used here.]
  2. The "No. of episodes" makes it look like there were 6 in the UK, 136 in the USA and "210" is just a leftover from some unknown country.

Unfortunately, I don't know for sure what is correct here. Otherwise, I might have taken a shot at changing it myself.

American run

[edit]

So, is Whose Line going to continue to run in America, or will it be cancelled as soon as ABC have got the most out of every previous taping session? The text is unclear. Is this because nobody knows?

Dave -Have found out when it was cancelled and inserted text to that effect. Dave.

Please sign your discussions with four tildes (~~~~), thanks. --Kylemcinnes 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This show

[edit]

From the description it sounds just like I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Is it?

I've never seen that show, but from wikipedia's description, it sounds mildly similar (helped by the fact that many performers have been on both shows). I think Whose Line (except for very early on) is more tongue-in-cheek about it being a competitive game show. The games in that show seem to be more like 'games' than most of the games in WLIIA, whereas there are games like Props or Questions only that are similar to those I read in this other show, but there are also games like Film and Theatre Styles or superheroes which aren't really competitive games - just way in which to get the cast to act/improvise. There is no "winner" condition for those games, they are just improvising scenes. There are a number of apparent similariries though TheHYPO 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention that I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue is a radio show.

Controversy

[edit]

It might be interesting to note times when Whose Line strayed into controversy. The only time I can recall a network censor actively moving to end a skit was the "Cosby and Hitler" sketch, which, once aborted, was raised as a running gag time and again throughout that episode. This might be worth mentioning if only because it is not often that we get to see a network censor at work. -- Freemount, 17 October 2006

The Hitler sketch is the only example I can think of where the interruption was shown on the air, but the outtakes section of the DVD contains several other examples. (The aborted Hitler sequence may have been kept because Drew made several references to it that otherwise wouldn't have made sense.) Strephon 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things on the show are arranged due to stuff like this. Showing the censor rejecting Hitler was necessary because Drew and the others refered to it in at least three separate games. I recall a time when "Irish Drinking Song" was played at the beginning of the second act, which was very unusual. The reason, however, was because of Colin's infamous line "blood in my stool", which was repeatly refered to in other games that taping. So perhaps what should be said is that the contestants can make it hard for the editors to put together a 30-second episode.

Origin

[edit]

As the opening paragraph states It was originally a British radio program, but later moved to television, first as a series made for Britain's Channel 4, and subsequently as another version made for American television., it is hard for me to see how the American version can be considered so different? The show undeniably originated in Britain, and, without it, there would be no American version, surely? DavyJonesLocker 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. The show was made for British TV. Then that series was ended, and a completely new series, with a new host, and new episodes was made for ABC. Nothing in that sentence says that the American version was substantively different from the British version. Simply that there was another version. TheHYPO 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've been clearer. I removed the USA from Country of Origin field in the infobox as, like you've said above, the show originated in Britain, but it was replaced by a user (who hasn't posted here) a couple of times. I'm still of the opinion that something can't possibly have 2 origins, hence the singular of the field name. DavyJonesLocker 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose My reasons are know. I think there is enough to warrant leaving both. The shows may be fairly similar, but in the end, is it any different than any other US show based on a UK show? -Thebdj 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, this page was perfectly fine with no real opposition to this until now. So what has changed? -Thebdj 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant and this is ridiculous. You say your reasons are known, but you haven't stated them. You've also just said yourself, a US show based on a UK show, dictionary definition: something from which anything arises or is derived, source, the first stage of existence. All of which means the US should not be there, please do not put it back. DavyJonesLocker 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we have had this talk in our user talk pages. Now, if there has been no support here either way, so until otherwise do not remove the tag again. If you really want this resolved put in an RFC, but do not revert this again. -Thebdj 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It purely depends on what 'origin' means. I can see both being there, because the two versions of the show are taped and broadcast in two countrys, therefore the two series originate from different locations. But as for where the pure origin of the show is, it's Britain. But "Survivor" was orignally based on a European series, wasn't it? and big brother? I'd still say that the US series of those are of "US" origin. I think having both countries has fair rationale... TheHYPO 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit fed up with this now, as it never should have become a problem in the first place. With respect, those examples you use don't work; WP has articles for both (and maybe more) versions and so each one has a different origin. The facts are that the show was created in Britain, the British show went to America, origin is singular etc. etc. etc. everything I've said before. A five character edit should not have created so much unnecessary controversy, and I for one, am thoroughly bored. DavyJonesLocker 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the box is going to have 'origin channel' which noone disputes that some are originally BBC and some originally ABC... then I don't see why there's an argument that there is no US origin AND UK origin for the series. As I said. What is the origin of Spider-man? "That he was bit by a spider" or "Marvel Comics"? It depends what origin means. Feel free to check the TV box and see what the peolpe in charge of that think - I don't care that much. But it completely depends on what origin means. country where the show is produced, or country where the idea was first concieved. To me, there is no clear answer, and no big deal either way. TheHYPO 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue here. The show started out in the UK. Therefore, it's orgin is the UK. Mshake3 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list needed

[edit]

I'm quite new to wikipedia (sorry for not writing in a correct manner) but I have a suggestion : we should write a list of all participants by appearing order (it should be cleaner). For both versions (us&brit). Thank you... --Anaudin 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised?

[edit]

Is it genuinely improvised? Some of the songs seem too polished to have been made up on the spot.--Darrelljon 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only things that aren't improvised (by the performers... Not including the quirks/LMAD ones) are the song styles for Greatest Hits. ZFGokuSSJ1 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vranch improvised the music on the British version, though. --Evildevil 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you're forgetting about the improvisation process is that these people are professionals who have been improvising in these styles for years, as most of them were on the British series before migrating to the American series. The musicians are improvising the music in the style suggested, which is not extremely difficult given a training on the instrument and in music theory. People are always suspicious that the show is not improvised, and always have been, but I do not see any indication that it would be other than what it is claimed to be. Also, if you watch enough of the show you will see one of two things: the musically trained / talented actors doing the difficult musical styles (song styles) and numerous mistakes by the actors in nearly any song category at one time or another. Liontamarin 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Hall and the rest of the musicians improvised the music for Greatest Hits. Colin and Ryan never were given song styles or genres, they would come up with them on the spot and the musicians and singers had to go along. 208.117.17.106 (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I should mention that it is quite silly to think that "mistakes" or "uncertainty" in the performance is proof that the show is improvised. If anybody were to create a show where they wanted it to seem like it was improvised they would be beyond stupid if they didn't write mistakes into the script. If the show wanted to add validity to the claim that it is improvised they could throw a ball into the crowd and use the answer of the person who catches it, instead of having Drew claim to be picking an answer randomly from the crowd. I have come across no conclusive or reasonable proof that the show is either real or fake. It seems that the article however has taken the view that the improvisation is real which suggests bias on the part of the authors. --203.206.108.189 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show is presented as improvised; every article written about it says it's improvised; all of the cast and participants say it's improvised. Barring ANY evidence to the contrary, the article has no reason to say otherwise. If you have a reliable source saying the show is not improvised, it can be presented in the article; otherwise, that's not how wikipedia works. TheHYPO (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"every article written about it" and "all of the cast and participants"; I'm going to assume that was just hyperbole. I do however have a problem that proof is not required before something is presented as a fact, only the need for others to say it is so. Just because somebody can get the vast majority to agree with them about something does not make it a fact (e.g. WMD, Flat Earth) and thus it should not be presented as so. When assumption is presented as fact, it only helps to mislead people. I think you had it dead on when you said "The show is presented as improvised", which I believe would be a far more correct way of describing it in an unbiased article. --124.169.131.188 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this affects anything, but I have been an audience member in a WLIIA/US taping, and I can vouch for the songs and other material being improvised on the spot. However, there is a caveat: they do reshoots. Sometimes a song will need to be retaped because the actor flubbed a word or made an inappropriate reference or something like that, and the director would step in and say "Okay, Ryan, that was great, but instead of Hitler, could you make that one line be about Gargamel?" or something similar. Oftentimes this retake would occur hours later in the taping (which lasted all day), and the actors were obliged to remember what they had come up with earlier in the day and recite it again as though they'd just come up with it—and we in the audience were obliged to laugh at it again as though it were the first time we heard it. So a lot of the reactions will sound forced, as will the delivery sound rehearsed. Yet for the purpose of the article, I would say that it's true that all the material is in fact newly improvised. Brian Tiemann (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we write about what reliable sources report. Writing that "it is presented as so", will lead to the bias that "it may not actually be so", which is POV. ---Debollweevil (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brian for the insight. The article makes absolutely no mention about this and is therefore misleading, implying that it is 100% improvised. I think that we should take this information very seriously and incorporate it into the article. However, we should also work hard into finding a source that we could cite to back up these claims. But acting like this information doesn't exist is dishonest. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

[edit]

There should be one; I'll start it off:

    • On some games, crew members and equipment are used; cameras, booms, the piano, and the buzzer.
    • Ryan breaks the neon lighting bordering Drew's desk.
    • In the end of Scenes from a Hat, Drew accidentally hits the camera with the hat.
Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read WP:TRIVIA. However, it would be better if you integrated such material into the text itself. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia shouldnt be on any wikipedia pages, in my opinion.--Evildevil 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is wrong then. 86.156.200.179 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Read WP:TRIVIA --Evildevil (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged =/= Forbidden Sabre Knight (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

[edit]

Changed the text of this paragraph slightly. John Sessions did not resume his role as the sole regular when the show moved to TV, as on radio he had shared it with Stephen Fry. Rojomoke 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will feel silly when someone replies back to me the answer but who the hell is Liv Mulneix? It's on the participants list, and as a Whose Line watcher, I can't conjure up that name to a face. I've googled her with no effect too. Unwisely (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never watched the US version so I don't know. Whoever it is, they seem non-notable as they don't have an article so they could probably be removed from the list. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, think I found the culprit - 24.154.19.87 added the character yesterday afternoon. I'm guessing it is false information so I've removed it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's better. It's just perplexing as it was there about 6 months ago; it was then that I removed it. But it seems it was added again. Unwisely (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Liv Mulneix, LIV MULNEIX?! She's one of the greatest comedians of all time. She's going to be 17 this August 2008. She has blonde hair and freckles, and the intersting part is that her left eye is brown and her right eye is hazel. If you look at her face, she kind of reminds you of a cute anime character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.19.87 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from 24.154.19.87 apparently taking the role of her agent, (or stalker or both) I can't find any trace of an actual Liv Mulneix. Needless to say, she wasn't on any Whose Line? UK or US. LicenseFee (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's an awarding winning comedian. She's the best and youngest female comedian ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.19.87 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet she was never on Whose Line?, so stop spamming this article with details about her. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was sooooooooooooo on whose line. End of dicussion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.19.87 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to revert three edits in a row. Could you please stop spamming the article? Nurse! He's out of bed again. LicenseFee (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Every episode of Whose line and I have never seen a "Liv Mulneix" --Demonworks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.195.179 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's proof that Liv Mulneix was on whose line. http://www.retrojunk.com/tv/quotes/1032-whose-line-is-it-anyway/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.19.87 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not reliable proof. Please give details of an episode number or a screenshot of her on the show. Also, there is no mention of her surname on that page; that alone is too suspicious. No more vandalism please. Unwisely (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure Colin Farrell was not a participant of Whose line is it anyway 87.84.150.133 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're right. It's removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted or unscripted?

[edit]

Was the show scripted or ad libbed or something in the middle of the spectrum? I seem to remember that the claim was that it was completely ad libbed without even a set up for the performers but they seem too good to be true. Regardless, this information is vital for this article if anyone knows the facts. Valley2city 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up three posts. -ZFGokuSSJ1 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.150.147.133 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mock the Week

[edit]

How exactly is this related to mock the week? Different people, channels, production companies and styles of programme. They seem totally unrelated. 86.10.81.54 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both shows were created by Dan Patterson and Mark Leveson. And a few WLiiA alumni appeared on MTW. Rory Bremner, for instance, was a regular performer in its first two seasons. And MTW also has an improvisational element, though not as strong on one as WLiiA. --Evildevil (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode lists

[edit]

Anyone against doing lists of episodes? I see that one has been started for the UK episodes, but this isn't linked to the main article. Any reason for this? LicenseFee (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an episode list. The existing one you've referenced needs renaming however as it has a capital E for episodes and it shouldn't. Also, are we sure the article needs to be separated into UK and US episodes? This article treats the show as one shouldn't the episode list do so also? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about one list, but split it into two sections? It'll be easier to find the cast list for the UK ones me thinks because there are less episodes and it's being repeated to hell on Dave. I'm not a great list creator, but if one gets going I'll help out. Just tell me where! LicenseFee (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

"Indeed the title of the show itself is a comedic riposte to another radio show, entitled What's My Line."

Is it? I assumed it was a play on Whose Life is it Anyway?. Do we have a reference for it either way? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not seen any evidence that the title is a reference to anything else or some sort of pun. Surely it is just a simple theatrical question about who has the line in a script. There is a well-known theatrical joke about a long-running play where the actors 'dry' and after several prompts, one actors says "yes we know the line darling, but which of us says it ?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.172.137 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the title as "Whose line?" but never as "WLIIA". Is there a reliable source that shortens the title to "WLIIA"? 98.222.89.250 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For laughs"

[edit]

In addition, the British version was more about improvisational theatre, which meant it would occasionally have games that were designed to show off its contestants' acting range rather than getting laughs

Only a few games were for laughs such as Moving People or Courtroom Scene. The US had fairly similar games, but the new ones were mostly for laughs like Action Replay, Irish Drinking Songs and Director. Although Director was in the UK version (and the Director was always Colin Mochrie in both versions), the UK version had the Director restricted to audience suggestions, thus more like an acting scene. In the US version, it was more for laughs as Colin was allowed to make up suggestions by himself.


This game also has other versions as well with certain instances of the performers having to imitate different people or to wear different hats while asking the questions, however these two versions of Questions Only were in the US version and were mostly just for laughs rather than acting.


--

Not striking me as entirely neutral, and, um, is getting laughs not an acting skill? What does everyone think? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is also not as if the British versions got no laughs at all. The British version has just as many laughs per episode as the US version. So apart from lower-brow jokes in the US version, there is n real difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love this show but this article needs to go on a diet

[edit]

For a start it could do without the descriptions of some of the skits. They're not necessary to understand how the games work and it's nowhere near as amusing to read about them as it would be to watch them.--RadioElectric (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fairly radical pruning of the content. Too much of the article was original research and opinion by fans as they added their favourite bit of the show. Events on the programme need to prove their notability by verifiable cites. Recollection of bits that made one particular editor laugh is really not enough and just fancruft. It also makes for a very messy, rambling article that kept repeating or contradicting itself as to what bit was best or most notable.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lassie

[edit]

Did Lassie really appear in one/more of the episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunners (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one episode, yes. Can't remember which one - all I can remember is it had Brad Sherwood guesting. LicenseFee (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Salute to American television" episode, although I can't remember the episode number. It was the same episode in which Sid Caesar also guest starred. --90.196.43.232 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference for anyone who doubts it. Gary King (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guests

[edit]

I think the one jumbled list of "guests" for both the UK and US show combined is a dumb idea. Most readers will prefer to know who was on the UK show separate from who was on the US show. These lists should be separated (easily separated into two paragraphs). If one goes back about a year in edit history, the article used to have separate lists. This can be used for reference. TheHYPO (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there should be separate lists. Also the US version section has Kathy Kinney as one of the celebrities making guest appearances for individual games, but I think she was a contestant? Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Kinney appeared as a contestant in 8 episodes.

Dates are as follows: 

        DD/MM/YY

SHOW 101 26/8/98 SHOW 102 9/9/98 SHOW 103 5/8/98 SHOW 104 12/8/98 SHOW 105 2/9/98 SHOW 106 19/8/98 SHOW 107 23/9/98 SHOW 108 16/12/98 77.97.84.38 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting and merging

[edit]

Shouldn't this be two three articles: the British radio version, the British TV version, and the American version? There is little reason for having both all three as it makes the article clumsy and confusing.--AndrewTJ31 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 6 radio episodes, and the format/content/background for the 2 television series was almost identical. I don't really see the value in splitting the article into pieces, as the majority of content would then need to be repeated/summarized for each. Many of the differences are most easily explained by comparing how they differ from the 'other' series, which is harder to do with separated articles.
Similarly, I object to merging the US list of episodes, as it will become significantly larger once fully expanded to encompass all 220 episodes.
I'm open to persuasion, but currently unconvinced. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there were otiginally two seperate articles, one for Whose Line UK and One for Whose Line US. Merging the US one into this article is completely condensing it in my viewpoint and it should be moved back to its own, seperate article.
However, the Radio show should stay with the UK TV Version, as before. 77.97.84.38 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article should be separated into appropriate articles and merge the radio information with the U.K. series. Merging means you have to condense and in turn leave out some information that is useful. Merging United States series episodes would make this article too long, thus it should have its own article. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is quite confusing. I'm not sure if all the responders understand the intended proposition, or current situation. To be clear, we currently have these four articles:

  1. Whose Line Is It Anyway?
  2. List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? UK episodes (includes the 6 radio episodes)
  3. List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? US episodes
  4. List of games from Whose Line Is It Anyway? (covers which were available in each)

If I understand him correctly, AndrewTJ31 wants to split #1 into three separate articles. He also wants to merge the "US episode list" somewhere (presumably the hypothetical new article on the US series).

I don't believe any changes (splits or merges) to this set are necessary or useful, at this moment. (for reasons partially explained above). What we currently have covers the information available, without mass duplication, and with embedded historical context.

Hopefully that clarifies the situation somewhat. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is fine the way it is at the moment. Maximus23623 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate or Merge and Delete?

[edit]

Someone created (first and only edit) Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series). Looking for a consensus:

I don't think either article would be long enough for separation. I vote Delete (WLIIA? (U.S. TV series)  Guy M | Talk  19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRODed Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series). 70.180.251.213 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (aka User:Guy M)  Guy M | Talk  23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I voted a strong keep per you DOOMSDAYER. The United States version of the show didn't have one or two off episodes that were experimental in nature to see how the North American audience would respond. It lasted about eight seasons from 1998-2006. So trying to condense the information would be a disservice in a few ways.
  1. It wouldn't get any of the editors to take an interest in the show to expand the article.
  2. Some of the participants like Ryan Stiles, Colin Mochrie, Chip Esten, etc.. weren't chumps that they hired off the street. They also worked on the original British version.
  3. It would be doing the show a disservice in general.
  4. You wouldn't delete the article on the American version of The Office just because you can add the information to the original British version article. That would be just asnine.
  5. Wikipedia:Othercrapexists and I am using this because there are articles on other TV shows that are far less notable.

Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The show is completely solidly notable. Nobody is claiming the show isn't notable. We're (I'm) just saying it is so-closely-related to the UK version, that is clearer to explain the two in juxtaposition to each other. Just as multiple vehicles that are independently notable, have been written about in a single location at Mini. Or to use your example, if The Office (US) used the same actors and scripts as the UK version, they would be most easily/clearly written about in a single location. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the issue of whether the two series are totally separable because they are so closely related, there is a precedent from the world of music. See Funkadelic, Parliament, and Parliament-Funkadelic. Note how each article has a notice at the top about difficulty in separating the topics, but they have all built their own histories, necessitating separate articles regardless. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're AfD request is being voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it. You are essentially forum shopping for your point of view it seems. That is not good Wikipeidaship. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I didn't prod or afd it! I also did not start any of the merge discussions. Check your facts before accusing people, please!
2. The claim of WP:Forum shopping that Colonel Warden made at the afd is really a misuse of that term. The 2 discussions above were inconclusive (as different people seem to be discussing different realities/assumptions) and nobody responded at Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series).
3. I agree with the admin JForget, that a prod was inappropriate, but that an AfD is perfectly reasonable, as a method to gather feedback on whether a merge-back is wanted. I agree with you, that the community seemingly does want the article to be split-out. As I said in the afd, I'm completely fine with that. Hopefully someone will actually edit that new article soon.
Hope that helps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - at risk of repeating the discussion at the AfD page, many of the arguments being made here against the new US article are based on the fact that it is currently anemic in its information. It won't be that way forever. I am going to put some time into expanding that article but I don;t have a lot of time available. Remember that Wikipedia is fully editable for a reason, and also WP has no deadline. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! m:Eventualism! Greatest thing since sliced bread! I Wholeheartedly encourage it. It's been front-and-center on my userpage since 2006. It's what got Wikipedia to where it is today, from the handful of stubs it started with. But, if something seems unlikely to expand in the near future, and could possibly be well-covered within another article (as it has been for 8 years until now...), then m:Mergism is another useful tool to occasionally think with.
However we now seem to have editors who are eager to edit a split-out, and that is perfectly fine. I've agreed that your perspective is also completely valid - I was just trying to explain the alternative, but if people can't even use wp:speedy keep correctly, then I'll just go sit in the sun for a while... Gah! ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that because of the challenges of text-only communication, where you can't add pesky things like body language or tone of voice, this whole discussion got a little more tense than necessary. Despite some differences in opinion, everyone has made solid points. Thanks Quiddity for keeping an eye on this issue for so many months (years). I gotta admit, I was inspired by this process to finally do the big article split today, after wondering for quite a while if anyone would fix the original combined article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Split-ists and Rescue Squad Members

[edit]

Today I am completing a quite extensive split of content from the combined article to the new Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series). This includes pretty significant changes to both articles and should negate the arguments in favor of deleting the US article because it is/was too skimpy. It isn't anymore, despite Quiddity's take on "eventualism" vs. "mergism". We could use some more citations at the US article if anyone would like to help out. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now there are two completely separate articles for the UK series vs. the US series, but I have left some narrative links to retain the relationship between the two. Basically, it is easy for someone to jump from one to the other to follow the history of the entire "Whose Line" franchise. Therefore I suggest a move in which the title of the main article, which is now focused almost entirely on the U.K. series, is retitled to something along the lines of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.K. TV series) or some such. Comments? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a page rename is necessary. Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't seem to give relevant guidance here, but for precedent, the chronologically original topic usually retains the undisambiguated title, eg Pride and Prejudice and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. If this page were renamed, we'd just have to decide (argue over) where to redirect the undisambiguated title. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We might be fine as-is since it is reasonably easy to jump from the UK (original) article to the US article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guest list

[edit]

I'd suggest that the Guest list here, is unnecessary duplication of the information in the episode list. It also mixes the US and UK guests (eg. Whoopie Goldberg and Robin Williams did not guest in the UK series, afaik). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, even though today I restored the whole list after someone else deleted it (that person's move was a little too bold, in my opinion, without discussion first). Perhaps the episode list could have some sort of special notification like an asterisk next to the table cell for everyone who was a special guest. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any difference between a "one-off-appearance" and a "special guest"?
As far as I can tell, there were 4 performers on each episode, and some performers simply happened to be on more than one episode - the section on "Performers" covers that, and gives examples. I don't think a further distinction can be made (unless we veer into original research, and attempt to exactingly define "regular performer").
I'll remove the list. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria that we're using for who is listed as a "Regular contestants" in Template:WLIIA and listed as "Starring" in the infoboxes (both here and the US article)? Presumably number of appearances, but how many? I'd like to add a hidden comment to the navbox/infoboxes explaining such. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Tune (UK at least)

[edit]

It sounds a lot like the saxophone solo in Genetic Engineering by X-ray Spex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSCgVbDMs-E No-genius (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:WhoseLine01.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:WhoseLine01.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 June 2012

What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WhoseLine01.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return

[edit]

Colin Mochrie has just announced that Whose Line Is It Anyway? will return. I consider Mochrie a reliable source on these matters, but considering the little information known so far, I worry about putting it in, but it sure will be interesting to keep track of. We don't even know if it will be British or American or some third situation. --Svippong 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there are more details available, this blog references this interview with Ryan Stiles talking about the new show, and Aisha Tyler being the new host. --Svippong 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackface???

[edit]

Check the opening title sequence to UK season 2 - blackface characters, including a moment where two blackface characters are holding banana's. That's kind of fucked up, even if it's completely unintentional (though having both blackface, and the banana reference at once...pretty odd) Arfed (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whose_Line_Is_It_Anyway%3F_(British_TV_series)&oldid=1210960324"