Talk:Larissa Kelly

Untitled

KEEP she has proven that by being the all time leader for female contestants she belongs. she has also become the third highest money winner and anyone not wanting her listed in jealous.Ducatigary (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I too would vote to KEEP. Other Jeopardy! winners have articles: Ken Jennings, Dave Madden, Jerome Vered, Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Timanus, maybe a dozen others. (Where is the article on Chuck Forrest?) Larissa Kelly is at least as deserving as the lesser of those luminaries. I wouldn't want to clutter up Wikipedia with an entry for every 5-time winner, but I think Kelly stands out above the crowd, and not only because she is a woman. Patzer42 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, just so you know, I've moved your comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larissa Kelly. That's the place for them, not here. Croctotheface (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't put the Wikipedia reference in the article text

It doesn't detail anything important about the subject of this biography. Although I see references to "find reliable/secondary sources" in the edit summaries, I'd still be opposed if there did exist such sources, as this content is trivial and does not deserve any weight in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikipedia reference should not be mentioned in the article text. But I believe it should be mentioned on this Talk page with the {{press}} template. If a particular Wikipedia article is mentioned (in any context) on a national television program, then that qualifies as mention by a media organization. However, Faithlessthewonderboy deleted the template from this Talk page. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Croctotheface, I agree with you completely. The only reason I brought up WP:RS is that there is no way anyone would be able to find reliable source for it, thus putting it to rest for good. As far as the press template goes, I still object to it being put on this talk page (the article was mentioned by a game show contestant, not a media organization), but obviously that's just one man's opinion. If there arises a consensus that it is warranted, by all means put it back. Best, faithless (^speak) 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with noting it on the talk page, and we may as well use the template, even if it's not 100% accurate, for tracking or whatever else purposes. Croctotheface (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I put a note at Template talk:Press asking for criteria on use of the template. Faithless argues that mention by someone on a game show is not mention by a media organization (even though the game show is distributed by a media organization). But you could make the same point about a Wikipedia page mentioned by a columnist in the New York Times or by Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Surely for purposes of this template, those would be considered mentions "by a media organization" even though strictly speaking they are just mentions by one person. --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that's BS that you can say there are no reliable sources to back it up. It did happen, and you can cite the TV show; it doesn't have to come from being repeated in the news. I see no reason why it can't be included, and we don't have to ignore it just because it's a self-reference to us. The article is not long, and a sentence mentioning it doesn't hurt. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It does hurt because it's trivial, just as noting what color shirt she wore on the show would be trivial. It also makes us look like a rinky dink organization if we feel the need to say "hey! we got a shout-out! WP represent!" within our encyclopedia articles every time someone mentions that they have one. Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We should at least say on this talk page that this is about the question asked by Alex Trebek during the chat session about her Wikipedia page, and that she remarked that some persons here sought to suppress it because she was not important enough. I saw the program, and heard her comments; I likely would not have looked at the page otherwise. It's ridiculous now that some people want to censor out the slightest criticism of the deletionists even on a talk page. Being trivial alone does NOT make something hurtful. Eclecticology (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I never would have thought she had a Wikipedia article if she hadn't mentioned it during the interview. I agree that noting what color shirt she wore on the show would be trivial, but there is nothing trivial about her stating she wasn't sure why it was determined she was notable enough to warrant having a Wikipedia article. Surely if Barack Obama publicly commented about his Wikipedia article that fact would be mentioned in it. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not convinced that in the Obama hypothetical, we would report on his comment, but if we did, it would be because we're interested in what the President of the United States says about WP. Whatever you think about Larissa Kelly, she doesn't have quite that stature. And if we're going to say that what she says about herself should go in, then anything she's ever said in any medium, including one-on-one conversation, can go in. Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since her only notability is her status as a Jeopardy! contestant, it stands to reason whatever she says about herself on the show is worth mentioning. If she had said she was in the Peace Corps for two years, I'm sure that would be included here. It seems the objection is solely because the reference was Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia doesn't somehow become significant because of the medium in which it is presented. Spending two years in the Peace Corps would be a relevant part of her biography--that is, not trivia. Making a self-effacing joke about her WP article is trivia, so it doesn't belong. Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care which way this debate falls, but after seeing this same back-and-forth, I thought that I'd weigh in as the devil's advocate: yes, it's trivia, but is trivia necessarily bad? She is a minor television celebrity, and trivial information is quite common among celebrity articles in WP (e.g., I saw one recently that listed the names of the person's pets). That is because that's a part of the celebrity status--people care about the trivia. If you have an article about a "serious" person, such as the leader of a country, such trivia would not be as appropriate. I think that the amount of words and time expended over this issue and the number of edit and reverts in the history of the article (by different people) shows that there are fans do care about this tidbit of trivia. I think the discussion would be much less tedious if we just admit that this is trivia and instead focus on a more interesting question: whether it's really that bad to have trivia on a "celebrity" article. -71.111.226.123 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're basically saying that if an article subject is not "serious" (which is a rather troubling judgment in the first place--I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a bunch of people who'd describe, say, George W. Bush as a joke), then literally any information can go in the article if it might be interesting to someone somewhere? Considering the degree to which WP covers topics that may not be "serious" to many people, and considering that this approach basically says we should not exercise any kind of editorial discretion about what information receives weight in our articles, I don't think that this is a path we want to go down. Croctotheface (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "not exercise any kind of editorial discretion" (which I agree is folly) and "a different standard of editorial discretion that is more appropriate to the nature of the article". Trying to frame things in terms of absolute extremes avoids the slippery slope, but is also an abdication of real editorial discretion. In any case, the arguments against this have been nothing more than variations of "it's trivia", which is not convincing without also making the case for why trivia is verboten. And as I already noted earlier, I don't care if this particular bit of info is included or excluded; I just want to see things take a form other than rehashing claims that it's trivia. 71.111.226.123 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your argument for inclusion was "fans do care," so by that logic, anything that fans care about should go in. I think that there is a general acknowledgment that encyclopedias should contain significant information and exclude trivial information, so I don't think I really have to make the case for that here. You may want to take this discussion up somewhere else if you want to argue in favor of covering trivial information in Wikipedia. Croctotheface (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction

As mentioned on Jeopardy, Larissa has written a science fiction story: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20081222/engines-f.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.225.55 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Level of detail regarding final jeopardy

Since Kelly's only claim to fame is her status as a Jeopardy! champion, I think anything about her appearance on the show is worth mentioning, so I added the subject matter of the question she missed in the Final Jeopardy! round of the championship. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you don't mean this literally, as, say, the number of times she clicked the buzzer for the fifth double jeopardy clue would not be especially relevant. I think that specific content of questions is probably an inappropriate level of detail, as it starts to approach a game summary or other such material. We link to her j-archive profile, and readers can get that same kind of information there. Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article said, "She won an additional $100,000 for finishing second". This makes it sound like she kept the winnings from the two earlier games in the championship, which isn't the case, so I removed additional from the sentence. If additional is supposed to mean in addition to what she won the first time she was on, then the sentence should read "Kelly added to her previous Jeopardy! winnings by receiving $100,000 for placing second" which makes it very clear. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is NO logical reason why the Final Jeopardy! question she failed to answer, causing her to lose the championship, should not be mentioned. I don't understand why some people think they own this article and can control its content. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Croctotheface removed this, calling it "unnecessary information." WHY would this be unnecessary? This should be open to discussion before deleting it without justification. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Kelly's Final Jeopardy! category question considered unnecessary information but the trivia about her sister Arianna being defeated in her initial Jeopardy! appearance, in part due to questionable calls that prompted Standards and Practices to bring her back for a second appearance, is thought to be relevant when it has no bearing on Larissa? And why is it Croctotheface constantly deletes other editor's contributions without discussing it first? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Croctotheface says "We link to her j-archive profile, and readers can get that same kind of information there." Why should a reader have to go to a different Wikipedia section to find out information that can be found here? I agree with 209.247.22.164 that the question she missed is a lot more important than the trivia about her sister. 172.130.75.156 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why this information should not be included in the article. I'm not sure I like the wording "failing to identify", but this is perfectly useful information. Ken Jennings has info about the final that he missed. This is a very short article so we do not need to be trimming anything. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Reywas92. If the information about Kelly's incorrect Final Jeopardy! answer is considered "unnecessary," then the same logic should be applied to the Ken Jennings article. I vote to allow it to remain. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that my general issue is that I don't see what anyone learns about Larissa Kelly from information about details about any of her matches. I suppose that the loss in FJ is "more worthy" of inclusion than the average detail from a game, but if that's going to go in, then it seems difficult to exclude her correct response of "Anubis" from the semifinals that earned her a win there, and we're headed down the slippery slope. Regarding the Jennings article, I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to have that level of detail there, either, but it's not really a parallel situation: losing after 74 wins versus losing a tournament final. We don't have information on his UToC games and why he didn't win those. The Jerome Vered article does not reference any specific clues; our entry on Frank Spangenberg only references the Wendy Wasserstein FJ, and that seems to be because she took him to dinner as a result, not because of any connection to the games. The dinner makes it a more relevant part of his biography. In any case, I've changed the "failure" language as I share Rey's concerns. Croctotheface (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Croctotheface summed up my feelings on the subject quite nicely. I'll also add that Ken Jennings's incorrect answer led to at least talks of him doing a commercial for Fed-Ex (I don't know if they ever got it worked out, though they did run an ad in USA Today featuring Jennings). Unless Philip II approaches Kelly with a similar proposal (unlikely at best), I don't think the situations are very comparable. faithless (^speak) 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a long article. This discussion is longer than the article! There is no need to be trimming down excess information yet. Maybe we should give more information regarding her other Final Jeopardy performances. In other articles maybe it would be, but at this point possibly too detailed info is, in my opinion, not hurting the article. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Details of the missed question are at worst trivially harmless, something that might be said about anything originating from a television show. If someone found the detail interesting enough to add, others will find it interesting enough to read. That's enough to justify the presence in the article. If at some future point the article becomes excessively long the issue may need to be reconsidered, but only in the context of everything else that will have been added in the interim. What happens on the Ken Jennings article, or on that of any other Jeopardy contestant has no relevance here, particularly since it cannot be assumed that any of us now contributing to this discussion participated there; we are not here addressing the inclusion of such material in those articles. The obsession that some have to apply their "expert" opinion to the determination of what is trivial is more damaging to the project than the alleged trivia themselves. They effectively turn one sentence factoids into major dramatic productions. Making the future of this detail depend on the input of a non-existent 18th century monarch is very generously identified as a facetious effort. Eclecticology (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference of opinion is over whether trivial information in an encyclopedia is harmless. Your opinion that it is is certainly not universally agreed upon. Croctotheface (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Who said the difference of opinion is over whether trivial information in an encyclopedia is harmless? That might be your assessment, but I don't see it that way at all. I think the difference of opinion is whether or not the information about the incorrect answer in Final Jeopardy! is trivial, which I don't believe it is. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arianna Kelly

The statement "Her sister Arianna was defeated in her initial Jeopardy! appearance, in part due to questionable calls that prompted Standards and Practices to bring her back for a second appearance" has been included in this article for a long time, so it appears there are those who feel this information is relevant. What I find frustrating is the fact the "questionable calls" are not identified. Now I'm sure there are some people who will argue this article is about Larissa, not Arianna, and additional explanation about these "questionable calls" would be out of place here. If that's the case, then I think any mention of Arianna should be deleted or at least modified so that readers aren't given half the story. This is the opinion of a reader, not an editor, and yes, there is a difference. Editors get caught up with all the rules and regulations and guidelines and tend to forget that average readers use Wikipedia as a resource, and if they're given some of the facts but not all of them, it's not doing its job. Until I read this article I didn't know Larissa had a sister who had appeared on the show before her. As long as the article is giving me that information, I think it should do it as completely as possible. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily object to more detail over her sister's appearance, but I don't think anyone knows what the "objectionable calls" were. It was discussed during one of the little 'interviews' that Trebek does with contestants, and no details were given. faithless (^speak) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the J-Archive of Arianna's first game, so you can see multiple questions that could be questionable (Tree line vs. Timber line, Windows ME vs. Windows Millennium Edition, iconoclasty vs. iconoclasm, and steel vs. iron in tin cans). I think that the info about Arianna should definitely be kept, though maybe reworded. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping the mention of her sister, but unless we know for certain which were the "questionable calls," we can't go speculating. faithless (^speak) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can say "questionable calls" if they used that kind of term on the show, but I agree with Faithless that we can't decide for ourselves which calls were questionable. Croctotheface (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larissa Kelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.er.doe.gov/sidebar/sci_bowl/bio6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328161523/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20081222/engines-f.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20081222/engines-f.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Larissa Kelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204113636/http://www.jeopardy.com/announcement_20080528_larissakelly.php to http://www.jeopardy.com/announcement_20080528_larissakelly.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Education

Larissa Kelly attended the Williams elementary school. A harbinger of her Jeopardy success was her outstanding performance in the Geography Bee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter.bender (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How about Matea Roach?

Matea Roach is on her 15th time, as of 04/ 28/ 2022... Can't recall her $$$ Winings. Hope she stays !!! Like her personality as well!!! A smart Canadien lady!!! 2600:1700:C3A0:F40:2DF9:7AE6:437C:B974 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)