Talk:Recurring segments on The Colbert Report

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[The Decemberists#Green screen music video|ShredDown]] The anchor (#Green screen music video) has been deleted by other users before.
[[The Decemberists#2006: Green screen music video|Colbert's Shred-Off with The Decemberists following Green Screen Challenge dispute]] The anchor (#2006: Green screen music video) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I would like to compile and annotate a list of recurring segments on The Colbert Report. Examples of these recurring segments include "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger", "The Wørd", and "Threat Down". My intent is to create a separate section devoted to each recurring segment. These sections should include a description or explication of the segment. Jparha2 01:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After watching some vintage (over 1 year old) Colbert Report during the past few days, I believe that a definition of "Recurring Segments" is necessary. I would like to discuss this further with all contributors. Jparha2 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discrepancy was brought to my attention after watching some episodes from March and April of 2006. The specific segment that sparked this debate for me was: Easter, Under Attack. This segment appeared multiple times (3+) but rather sparingly and obviously rather seasonally. Does this segment constitute a "Recurring Segment" or not? Jparha2 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Recurring Segments"[edit]

Please addend or amend these conditions.

A Recurring Segment IS:

A segment which occurs often, with some level of frequency (Jparha2 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is formally introduced by Stephen Colbert (e.g. includes an intro sequence) (Jparha2 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A Recurring Segment IS NOT:

A segment which has appeared only sparingly (Jparha2 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A section of the show that occurs in every show (e.g. introduction, guest interview) (Jparha2 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Better know a...[edit]

I think we should possibly put all these as subcategories labelled of a section "Better know a...". If not, Challenger/Betterer know a district should be subcategories of "Better know a District". mattbuck 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of establishing a == Better Know a... == heading with subheadings === Better Know a Challenger === and === Betterer Know a District ===. Jparha2 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey on the Lam[edit]

If he does a few more Monkey on the Lam segments we should add that one to the list. Lobot72 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smokin' Pole[edit]

There has been 3 Smokin' Pole segments one on the Russians putting their flag under the north pole, one on Greenland's Arctic claims, and the one that aired on 8/21. This segment has aired one more time than the Monkey on the Lam segment, but if either the Smokin' Pole or Monkey on the Lam ceases then maybe they should be removed later. IG-2000 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if a segment goes on an extended hiatus or no longer appears on the show (Colbert Report) the section on this page devoted to that segment should NOT be removed. In my opinion, the point of this page is to document recurring segments from the show. The fact that Monkey on the Lam or Smokin' Pole were recurring segments at some point during the show's history is significant. It does not matter whether the segment is currently in use on the show.Jparha2 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Jansen[edit]

Maybe we should add a section on Alpha Squad 7: The Adventures of Tek Jansen to the main page. They haven't shown this segment in awhile, but according to Colbert the last time he showed it he said there would be more chapters. Just putting this out here to see what everybody thinks. IG-2000 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with this segment. However, if it is/was a recurring segment then it should be added to this page. I will make a section devoted to Alpha Squad 7: The Adventures of Tek Jansen on the main page. Please annotate it, as I am unfamiliar with this segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparha2 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a commercial saying they'll finally air some new segments soon, and reportedly it's been adapted into a comic book series. I'm surprised that this page omits the miniseries, yet includes bits like Monkey on the Lam. That segment wasn't recurring at all, since it only appeared in one episode and the joke centered around how they'll never be able to use that graphic again since they caught the monkey. --71.225.92.16 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then write it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMEN! Jparha2 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then write it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It HAS recurred. I haven't been watching The Report long enough to know the previous one, otherwise I would write it. mattbuck 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fracts[edit]

Are fracts really worthy of a mention? The segment was retired well over a year ago and were never a major part of the broadcast. Shoemoney2night 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should stay. Just because something is retired doesn't mean it gets removed.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my point was more that it made up a very minor part of the show - much smaller than, say, the On Notice/Dead to Me/Fantasies boards, Difference Makers, Stephen Colbert's Balls for Kidz, Stephen Colbert's Bears and Balls, and so on. Shoemoney2night 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to not include the Fracts, that's a reason for someone to write up those segments.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Word[edit]

In the section for The Word, there are two citations for the actual source/parody for this segment.

One of these is for The O'Reilly Factor and another one is for Mark Hyman's The Point.

Shouldn't there be only one or be mentioned that the segment is derived from both programs?

The way that the article words the section makes the understanding of where The Word came from ambiguous.

I'd be glad to do it myself, although I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject. --MadameArsenic 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OnNoticeDead2Me.jpg[edit]

Image:OnNoticeDead2Me.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure[edit]

I don't think that "National Treasure: Portrait of Stephen" constitutes a recurring segment - it's obviously a self-contained piece (comparable to a correspondent piece on TDS) like Alabama Miracle, spread over two or three episodes. If Stephen were to, say, press the issue and campaign for the Smithsonian to display his portrait under this segment title then I think it would warrant a place on this page; as it is, I don't think it can really be considered recurring. Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Riding My Coattails Now?[edit]

Would his "Who's Riding My Coattails Now?" segment be considered recurring? Or does it not occur often enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.5.30 (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there - see Who's —ing Me Now?. Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro needs rework[edit]

The introduction does not define what the article is about. Needs a rewrite to let the reader know what we are talking about! Lester 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Colbert-truthiness.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search For Nazi Gold![edit]

Does this constitute a reoccuring segment? It was mentioned several times and he even went to the trouble of creating a shirt. On the front it says I dig Hitler and on the back it says 's gold!. Then he came back on and said that a nice man from Argentina bought them all and proceeded to address this man saying something like; those will be great for your youth camp!. I would like to see this added to the page and am willing to do it myself by researching the specific episodes and finding sources but was unsure if that would upset whoever takes care of this page.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canton[edit]

...should be added, IMO - rst20xx (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DaColbert Code[edit]

Sorry to nitpick, but when it says "...he illustrates how it works by given a test of it by predicting who killed John F. Kennedy, which at each time had lead to a different suspect, including Jacqueline, Johnson, Nixon and himself," does it mean himself as in Colbert himself, or Kennedy himself? Jedibob5 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought for Food[edit]

Is there a reason that Thought for Food is missing? It's one of the most prominent recent recurring segments. Listroiderbob (talk · contribs) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]