Talk:QI/Archive 2

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

Name & Format

Who came up with the name of "QI: Quite Interesting" and format of the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.207.87 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Roy Cheats

On the BBC Four episode shown tonight (with Rory McGrath, Sean Lock and Jimmy Carr). Rory McGrath's performance was stunning. A great episode, but I'm reminded of that fact that Rory used to cheat on They Think It's All Over. Jooler 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

John Lloyd, the producer of QI, writes: "Whatever Rory's habit may or may not be on They Think It's All Over he wasn't cheating on that edition of QI, (or indeed on his second, subsequent appearance) and it is completely unfair to suggest that he was. The research team, the audience and Stephen Fry were all completely astounded by his erudition and powers of memory. No research had been done by anyone at QI that week on either the Latin names of birds (cormorants aside) or on atomic numbers, so there was nothing for Rory to cheat from, even had he been so minded, or had we wanted to allow him to". - anon

I'm sure the researchers (elves) for QI must consult Wikipedia. There seem to be a lot of references to things I've written/read about here. Jooler 23:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just do a search for "Wikipedia" on the QI forums, where the elves can be found. violet/riga (t) 23:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

(Spoilers) Related to cheating, in episode 1 of the E series (at the recording on Thursday 10th May) Alan correctly answered that termites are the world's largest natural source of methane (cows was a klaxon). He then revealed that John Lloyd (who he refered to as the "producer") had given him the answer when they were having a meal together (Jo Brand was also present) before the show. It was assumed that this was a mistake on behalf of John Lloyd. I don't know if this will make the final edit but his points were included in the final scores. Grizzlyqi 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Errors and stuff

One episode claimed that Corby is the biggest town in Europe without a railway station. But apparently it's actually Gosport. And I'm also told that Corby once had a station but it closed down. Does this mean that:

  • QI got something wrong?
  • Gosport still has a defunct station, whereas Corby's was demolished altogether?

And I guess there's method in the madness of penalising the answer of "two" for the number of moons Earth has - the point was to catch out those who remember that answer being given before, as well as those who think "one's too obvious, let's try the next number up". But we ought to have a reference on these other two moons. -- Smjg 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

They seem to have started penalising not only for "obvious but wrong" answers, but also for "obvious and correct" answers. Alan Davies was penalised for saying that the Ford Model T was black, which most of them were. Not all of them, true, but he was certainly not wrong in his answer. The QI researchers also seem to have assumed that because carrots don't particularly help you see in the dark, "Cats Eyes" Cunningham could not possibly have eaten them for his supper. This is a sub-schoolboy error. --Bonalaw 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the second of Smjg's assertions is correct, thus making QI correct. As for the Ford Model T, I'm trying to remember the exact wording but I think it was along the lines of "In what colour was the first Ford Model T made?" as opposed to asking what colour they were available in. I can't recall the Cats Eyes discussion well enough to reply to that one. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I remember the exact words for this question (because i am very very sad) it is "What colour was the model t ford?" David Cat

Did they get something wrong again last week with what Cinderella's slippers are made of? -- Smjg 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Partly, yes. To quote http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/qi/abitmore/ (which will change shortly)
In this week's show Clive Anderson suggested that Cinderella's glass slipper is the result of a mistranslation from the French word 'vair', which means 'fur' (as opposed to 'verre', which is glass. Although Stephen accepts this answer, it isn't quite right.
You might be interested to note the fact that this page frequently refers links to Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if they read talk pages. In the event that they do: the "Lord Pembroke" business was wrong, chaps. Sorry. Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was watching a repeat on UKTV on the 13/07/06 and Stephen Fry stated that "Albania is the poorest country in Europe." This is incorrect, as Moldova is in fact, the poorest country in Europe in terms of GDP per capita. Credit goes to my good friend Paul "Slayer" Cunningham for that one. Colossus 86 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Moldova is the poorest country in terms of GDP per capita but Albania is the poorest by other measures. It should've been more specific though, I agree. violet/riga (t) 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cruithne cannot be counted as earth's second moon, as it in fact orbits the sun, just slightly behind the earth, not in orbit around earth as Fry and Davies describe.

On the main Wikipedia page, the text "Alan appeared to [break a glass with his voice], but Doon Mackichan revealed that he had used a wire, as it is impossible to do." This was actually achieved on the american show Mythbusters, where a singer broke a glass with his voice, without the use of any amplification.

I'm sorry, but fry actually stated that it's nearly impossible to do-GeorgeFormby1

I believe that Steven Fry stated that cats have a bone in their penis which I have ben told is incorrect and can find no evidence for. Shouldn't errors be included in the main article?

Ah, but they do have a bone in their penises. Fribbler (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the multiple moons question? That is an error, there is certainly only one known moon. There things referred to on the show are near-Earth asteroids that orbit the sun, not us. ArdClose (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Luna isn't technically a moon either. Moons orbit their planet but Luna doesn't. Terra and Luna actually form a double planet system with both orbiting the Sun. If the Sun was suddenly removed from the situation, Terra and Luna would fly apart. This wouldn't happen with true moons such as the moons of Mars or Jupiter which would quite happily continue to orbit their planets even if the Sun were to be miraculously removed. So if you don't count those near-Earth asteroids, then the Earth has no moons. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In one episode, they mention the Carry On film Don't Lose Your Head and Stephen Fry talks about the scene where Jim Dale is laying on the guillotine and a girl comes up with a letter and he says "Drop it in the basket, I'll read it later". This is wrong, it wasn't Jim Dale it was Charles Hawtrey playing the character Duc de Pommfrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjay63 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such movie as 'Carry On Don't Lose Your Head'. It was called simply 'Don't Lose Your Head'. The filming of the Carry On series had just been taken over by the Rank Organisation from Anglo American, and they were not sure about the copyright status of the 'Carry On ...' title. 'Follow that Camel' was also not officially a Carry On film. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This statement under "Corrections, mistakes and retractions": "However, the initial answer of the change in pitch is still correct as timbre is a collection of pitch or frequency and this is changed to an overall higher pitch because of the effect of the helium on the voice box's resonance" is complete nonsense. "Timbre is a collection of pitch or frequency?" When the point of the entry is that pitch and frequency are essentially the same thing? Helium doesn't affect pitch, it affects the formants, because helium is less dense than air, the voice cavity sounds relatively smaller, like a dwarf's voice, not higher in frequency. We likely associate it with higher pitch because children, who have smaller vocal cavities also have higher-pitched speech. This needs to be corrected. o0drogue0o 09:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Fibonacci Background

The overlays for the screens in the background appear to be a graphical representation of Fibonacci's Numbers, worth a mention? 172.159.65.65 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The resemblence to the spiral generated by the Fibonacci sequence (or the Golden Ratio thingy) is basically coincidental. The set designer was going for aethsetic appeal, not mathmatical. I forget where I read this (probably the QI website itself; I'd check, but wikipedia isn't worth that amount of effort for me).

broken down by age and sex

"broken down by age and sex" This joke first appeared in Round the Horne "I SHOWED THEM IN FLEET STREET" Broadcast: 12th May 1968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.52.100 (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How many wives did Henry VIII have?

I was trying to look up QI's answer to this. (1) What is it please and (2) would it not be nice if I could easily have discovered it for myself in wikipedia? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You could try looking at Henry's page, all it took was two clicks:;) I recall it as two, but according to that page, you can say six or three.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII Halbared (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Australia live shows?

On Graham Norton's show on Friday, Alan Davies said that he'd been out in Australia recently to do QI live shows with Stephen Fry and Australian comedians. I can't see anything about the article on this. I've Googled, and it was in October/November in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane. I can't find though - albeit in a fairly superficial search - who the Aussie guests were. There's also some paper coverage about how expensive the tickets were. Worth chucking in? HornetMike (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the "QI Live on Stage" program (available at the shows), the special guests for each show were a selection of any three of the following: Wil Anderson, Arj Barker (an American who chose, towards the end of the show I attended, to leave the stage for a few minutes in order to relieve himself - definitely his most amusing and erudite contribution to the evening), Jennifer Byrne, Jono Coleman, Stephen Curry, Andrew Denton, Kitty Flanagan, Dave Hughes, Shane Jacobson, Colin Lane, Meshel Laurie (pitiful), Shaun Micallef (excellent - the Australian Stephen Fry), Genevieve Morris, Julia Morris, Peter Rowsthorn, Akmal Saleh, Angus Sampson, Denise Scott, Adam Spencer, Red Symons, Myf Warhurst, Cal Wilson, Julia Zemiro. The venues were Her Majesty's Theatre, Melbourne, the Queensland Performing Arts Centre, Brisbane, and the Burswood Theatre, Perth. (For once Melbourne got something Sydney didn't... yay! And yes the tickets were pretty hideously expensive.) Pete3194 (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Documentary

On September 10 2011 at 9.45pm BBC2 aired a 60 minute documentary titled The Making of QI, containing interviews with key personnel, talent and production staff. Definitely should be included, I'll let wiser heads decide where. Pete3194 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Series subpages

The series subpages have been "culled" by User:Nikkimaria who has deleted almost all the episode content from each one. I reverted the changes as per WP:BRD/WP:1RR but she has once again removed it all again (I have no problem discussing her opinions but prefer due process and returning articles to the status quo).

The articles are very interesting (encyclopaedic, if you will) and contain summaries of the key points of each episode. The QI production team are very much in favour of the articles and I see no harm in the articles the way they were. comments from others would be very much welcomed. 86.143.166.142 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the pages in question have been tagged as containing excessive detail for over a year. In some cases, they contain over a hundred kilobytes of pure summary. It would be more beneficial to focus that effort on material from secondary sources, particularly impact/reception information which these articles currently lack. (It would also be better to discuss this elsewhere, but as you will). The articles may be "interesting", but they're also contrary to WP:WHIM - this is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of episode summaries. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, the episode listings are more than summaries; they contain the show content and the information discussed. Since QI is a factual program, it would seem that this is allowable under WHIM. If the page size is an issue, it may be prudent to clean-up and trim down the content (e.g. cut out tangents and only discuss the core question topics). I am mostly in favour of keeping the episode contents in place; granted there are some which are overly long, but a mass deletion of the article contents seems excessive. My suggestion would be to make an effort to trim down the articles. Siphida (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The "show content and the information discussed" is a summary of what was presented in the show, in great detail. Perhaps limit it to one or two-word topics? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In the same respect, it is the "plot" of each episode. The entirety of any given episode of QI doesn't have to revolve around its show title, particularly noted in the General Ignorance round. Some television programs are cataloged in their entirety on Wikipedia with one full page per episode. Impact and reception are not very applicable due to the nature of the show, and cannot truly be expected in these subsections. I do agree that there could be tidying up; I find that the DVD Extras section in A and B Series can be added to the main section on each episode, and the DVD Extras section removed, as well as slimming the "Pilot" section in A Series. I also do agree that the various tangents can be edited/removed as some are excessive, and that there could be rephrasing in the topics themselves to be more selective. I am not in favor of a vast reduction of information because the information should be considered plot summary, not trivia. The rules are not absolute, and there can be a good way to present this information without being too slimming nor too excessive that may be outside of the traditional style. VekuKaiba (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether it's plot summary or trivia, there's way, way too much of it. Other stuff exists is not a good argument in favour, I'm afraid. Nor is canvassing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not intending to invoke canvassing, I wrote of my own free will without any prior incentive; with respect, that's not an acceptable counter. In fact, it's a very poor counter. As for other stuff exists, I am simply making a point. Disregard it if you will. However, there is no reason to lose valuable information that people might find interesting, as seen in DOSPAGWYA 3.4, although in using that as an argument I may seem self-contradictory, it seems. I merely don't wish to see good information go. VekuKaiba (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As I'm sure you can appreciate, a new account jumping into this discussion on their first edit does look a little odd; with respect, "valuable information" is content which meets our policies, including limits on summary, requirements for reliable secondary sources, and WP:NOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
None of this justifies a large scale deletion of article contents, especially not without prior discussion. I think it would be a far more constructive exercise to identify the key information which needs to be retained and then clean it up to meet standards. Siphida (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I see Nikkimaria's point but still value the detailed encyclopaedic information in the articles and especially appreciate the links to other wikipedia articles in them. If removed I find myself searching for the details in the history pages. So I see no harm in leaving all the topics and tangents in place. Panelists and buzzers could be combined or buzzers could be removed. Renetus 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The wide-scale removal of content is quite rude given the amount of time and effort put into it, so discussing this is the right thing to do. Personally I'm in favour of the content as it goes in line very much with what Wikipedia is all about. There is precedent for episodes of some series to have their own articles (some even featured!) and this details each one more concisely than some others. There is room for some reduction but I think it's great to have such articles. violet/riga [talk] 09:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Extremely obscure?!

Most of the questions are extremely obscure, making it unlikely that the correct answer will be given.

Ha! Speak for yourself...Try Eggheads... Myles325a (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regular guests

Is the list of "regular guests" on the template at the bottom of the page maybe a bit too extensive? There are several people on there who are listed in the article as having two appearances. Is this really being a "regular" guest? 114.75.5.10 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of Series Confusion

There appears to some confusion in the article about the number of series of QI. The information box on the right says that it is 10 and the second paragraph ends with "The tenth (J) series began on BBC Two on 14 September 2012." However, the second paragraph in the Production section ends with "Series 11 however dispensed with a warm up, instead giving time to Stephen Fry to record and tweet audience AudioBoos and introduce the guests." So have there been 10 or 11 series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetchannel (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well since the series are also alphabetised, J is both the tenth letter and series. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Theme Tune - Similarity to an earlier tune?

Has anybody noticed the similarity of the first part of QI's theme tune by Howard Goodall to the '70s hit tune by Skyhooks "All My friends are getting married"?

Googling "All My Friends are Getting Married youtube" will give a comparison.

Proword (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a similarity in parts but I wouldn't think anything of it - there are only so many tunes in the world after all. Also, this is not a forum. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Table of winners?

Can someone provide this page with a list of programme winners? With my rudimentary calculations I get Alan Davies with 19, followed by Rich Hall with 9, and then Clive Anderson and David Mitchell with 7 each. However, I don't want to put it up myself if I have made mistakes in counting them. Quizman1967 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Appearance Totals

I'm a bit obsessed with this show, and have compiled a spreadsheet of every episode and the guests thereon. The totals given for the contestants are completely wrong. I don't feel comfortable changing them because this is surely "original research", but the article is definitely wrong. For instance, Jo Brand is stated as having been on 32 times, not including specials, but she has only been on 30 times INCLUDING specials, 29 without. 67.170.84.219 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong fact in the show

In the C series, Alan said to Stephen that Chinese invented paper. The correct answer is "We don't know" since paper decomposes quickly. The earliest evidence for a country with paper changes over time merely because it's really difficult for paper to preserve.

What the Chinese contributed to paper was the stability of it by adding fabric fibers, but that's not the same as inventing paper.

I'm proposing that gets added (though linking to the paper article). Objections?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like original research, unless a published source has commented on this with direct reference to QI. - Cal Engime (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Episode deletion

For information, the episode/series articles have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of QI episodes violet/riga [talk] 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Guests get the questions

On the main Wikipedia page, under 'Production', it states the (by now) well known statement that Fry made about only one guest insists on knowing the questions. However, I've just seen an article from Aug 2013 stating that Davies admitted that all the guests see the questions:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/quite-interesting-contestants-on-bbc-quiz-show-know-the-questions-in-advance-8775265.html

I haven't been able to find a more complete interview, only the tabloidal (new usage) reference. Not sure if this, then, should be changed. StefanijaSili (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Hi everyone does anyone think QI is feature article worthy? if not what needs to be done? Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Too much detail

The article contains numerous phrases like "... achieved after losing 150 points for guessing that Gandhi's first name was Randy in the "Differences" episode", which refer to only one small part of one episode. I am concerned that trivial anecdotes in the "Buzzer", "Extra tasks", "Episodes", "Guest appearances" and "Corrections, mistakes and retractions" section should not be included in a GA.

For instance, the article currently says "Four episodes have the distinction of being won by the audience" and goes on to list all four occasions, as well as the time the audience lost 100 points. Why is this necessary to mention? The information may interest some fans, as would other record-type data (lowest score, highest score etc.), but it is not needed to understand how episodes of QI work (see WP:FANCRUFT). Additionally, a long list of celebrities who have appeared is not relevant: one could include a short list of regular panellists, if it is referenced, or notable guests (Daniel Radcliffe might qualify). The information about number of wins is very trivial, and entire list is unsourced. Per WP:SILENCE, if no-one objects within a week I will assume consensus and start removing these parts of the article. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 19:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried to clean up the article in this edit. These are major changes to a supposedly good article, so I'd like someone to look over these changes and comment here (please comment — even just to say "the changes look good"). It's been over 5 years since any sort of formal review of the article has been done, so I may take this to GAR or get it peer reviewed soon, especially if no-one replies here.
Issues still remaining:
  • Citation needed templates
  • Dead links in references
  • Lead mentions pre/post-watershed airings, but these are not expanded upon later
  • Perhaps the "Luvvie Alarm" warrants a brief explanation somewhere
  • I haven't touched the "Guest appearances" section (yet), but it's certainly not okay as it currently stands
  • The (now renamed to) "Mistakes and corrections" section might still need to be cut back a bit and referenced more thoroughly
  • The reception section needs expanding
  • There's an error in reference #41 and I can't work out why — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the reception section a bit but I still think it needs more work. Very little is written about ratings — and the small portion that is was just added by me, based on a review. The second paragraph in the lead talks in detail about the channels the show has aired on: this should be mentioned further in the reception section (and then maybe cut back a bit in the lead). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Panelists are given buzzers to use in signaling a response, each of which produces a different sound when pressed. For the first three series, the sounds were seemingly random things or followed an arbitrary theme in each episode, such as commonly heard everyday sounds in the Series C episode "Common Knowledge." From Series D onwards, all four sounds are based on the particular episode's theme, such as in the Series F episode "Films and Fame" (sound clips associated with well-known movies, with Davies receiving Porky Pig's stuttering "That's all, folks!"). The buzzers are always demonstrated at the beginning of the programme, but are usually given a shortened version for repeated use during the episode, mostly in General Ignorance.[citation needed] Davies "always gets the most demeaning sound" for his buzzer.[18]

Sometimes, the buzzers have unique points to them, such as having questions based on them; in most cases they are usually about Davies' own,[citation needed] such as for example, one of his buzzer noises in the Series D episode "Descendants" sounded like a Clanger, and the panel had to try and guess what was being said, while in the Series F episode "Fakes and Frauds", all the buzzers sounded like ordinary household objects, but three turned out to be the sound of the superb lyrebird mimicking the noises. In other episodes, they were sometimes changed to suit the theme of an episode; for the Series D episode "Denial and Deprivation", the panelists had to use unique buzzers - two had bells, one flicked a ruler over the edge of a school desk, and Davies squeezed a toy chipmunk - while in the Series G episode "Green", the buzzers were replaced with whistles so the show could be eco-friendly.

I would change to

The sounds generated by each panellist’s buzzer are unique and usually thematically linked to the episode’s leitmotif (for example, using film scores in an episode on films, using non-electronic “attention seeking devices” such as a hand-bell in an episode on deprivation); or to QI itself (in one episode the buzzers were apparently the noises of household appliances but had in fact been recordings of the Lyre bird imitating those appliances – which is in itself Quite Interesting).

Alan Davies’ buzzer almost invariably stands in contra-distinction to the other panellist’s buzzers – for example in the episode “Fakes and Frauds” the first three buzzers (of the three guest panellists) were recordings of the Lyre bird imitating the sound of household appliances, whilst Alan Davies’ buzzer was a recording of the actual appliance.

official terms

shouldnt it be included here that the shows official terms for its host and panellists are QI Master (Host) and Bantermeisters (panellists) this is how they are described in the end credits so i would assume its correct

Tony Spike (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The mistakes and corrections section

There's a comment saying only to add corrections acknowledged by QI. Why..? There are false statements even within this section. Wikipedia should not endorse misinformation. For instance, the section currently states that the number of Earth's moons has been "corrected" to 18. In point of fact this is false, there is of course only one moon of Earth, as specified in the well-cited Claimed moons of Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.129.167 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 August 2015

Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research and our aim is not to endorse misinformation, but to merely comment on what reliable sources have had to say about QI. Truth is not what we require. Even if a source exists to say fact X is correct, unless it explicitly says that QI made a mistake, talking about it here would be synthesis. But I think the section gives too much weight to such a small issue and if you want to remove some of the unsourced parts of the section, and/or make it more concise, it would probably be an improvement. If I ever get round to improving the article I might do some copyediting on the section myself. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not engaging in original research or synthesis..? I'm talking about citations pertinent to what the article claims is a fact (see first sentence of Moon for the citations). The problem is that sentences like "corrected the answer to that there are now at least eighteen thousand natural objects in orbit of Earth" aren't just statements about what QI said; they also assert that it is correct. Either the article should be modified so that it is not misleading in this way (quite tricky to see how to reword it though), or else the article's making claims for which there are contrary citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.92.167 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay. I've just removed that bit because it does imply an untruth and because there is plenty of detail already about "Knowledge", and I also removed the unsourced sentence about Cruithne in the first paragraph. I was assuming you wanted to write something extra to clarify, like "In actuality, QI were incorrect again as there is only one moon of Earth", which is where original research would have applied. On a separate note, when you post messages on talk pages can you please use the code ~~~~ at the end of your message so the system adds your signature? This helps others to know when a post was written and by whom. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Major WP:YESPOV problems in series subpages

There seems to be some serious misconceptions about what Wikipedia is in the articles describing the QI episodes. These articles contain a series of mini-factoids instead of description of the show. Describing this material as fact in Wikipedia's voice is contrary to WP:YESPOV. I cleaned one entry up here to describe the "show", not the "fact" (since it was dead wrong). Keeping the content encyclopedic via describing the show would cleanup most of this up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that the description of the show and its content is properly discussed about in a full article about the show. What you are talking about seems to be the actual misconception; each series subpage contains the episodes within, set out by Title, Broadcast Date, Recording Date (If applicable), Panellists (Including Score), Theme and/or Task (Describing anything special about the episode and/or task involved in it), and Topics. "Topics" is important to the subpage, because it informs us of what was talked about on the show and the facts they gave out to answers to questions given. Describing the comedy that is involved (i.e. Rich Hall describing the film as a "snuff" film") should be reserved for WikiQuote, not Wikipedia. Brining in info, such as the term that Edison was bring about from his propaganda against his rival, is relevant. I think more importantly though, that the information that talk about that is included in topics, might need proving by people referencing any sources that can confirm the facts they put forward. GUtt01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I should also like to further put in, that if this was such an issue, why then was only one Topic Point changed, and not the rest in the whole Series subpage that was worked on, because such a issue would require an editor to go through all subpages and do this. If the point was wrong, should not the point have been modified to state that the story given was incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The description of the shows re:general themes and participants is fine. The excessive topic description is not. Wikipedia articles describe their subject for the average reader, we do not repeat the questions or summarize the answers as a kind of "fan guide". The problem with the "topic" formatting (other than stuff that is just plain wrong being put in Wikipedia's voice) is: its redundant (we have a whole encyclopedia for those descriptions), and it provides little or no context for the reader. A blank list of topics offers no information, it does not describe the show, who is saying what to whom, and for what reason. Re: cleaning up one topic? It was changed because it was wrong and in the wrong format for an encyclopedia, just because the rest of it is also wrong is not a good rational for changing back one topic point, and yes, the rest of it needs to be changed to conform to WP:CCPOL. We (as editors) do not review the show in any way, shape, or form, such as declaring content right or wrong. That is original research unless you can point to a reliable secondary source (a review of the show) that makes that observation. Quotes do not simply go to WikiQuote (see WP:QUOTE). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ALL TOPIC SECTIONS TO BE CLEARED OUT!!

Owing to a user pointing out that the Topic sections of QI's Series Subpages clearly conflicts with several policies of Wikipedia, all TOPIC sections will be cleared out of all facts and details about what was discussed.

The format for all series subpages will now be changed to resemble this as follows:

  • Broadcast Date
  • Recording Date (where known)
  • Panellists - Each panellist, points they earned, and appearance number (i.e. 2nd appearance)
  • Theme (If a theme was used)
  • Task (Where a special bonus task(s) were used)
  • Topic - Subject matter of a question discussed on show (NO DETAILS OF DISCUSSION AND FACTS!):
    • Subject itself
    • Subsection of Part (i.e. Dangerous Sport - Most Fatal)
    • Additional Subjects
  • Notes - Anything important in regards to the episode (i.e. Ratings, absence of a panellist, etc)

This format will now be put into place as of 28 September 2015, and will NOT be changed. Any complaints by editors who worked on these should be made to the admins and not to anyone who complies to this new decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Owing to a user pointing out that the Topic sections of QI's Series Subpages clearly conflicts with several policies of Wikipedia, I have had to make them comply with these policies. I am aware this could upset and annoy people who made these sections for the subpages, but I took them out to avoid the possibility of an argument erupting. I and the user in question kept changing a topic point, but because this could be construe as the start of an argument and editing war, the removal of Topic points is to stop this from happening.

Unless either people do not believe they should have been removed, or the information should have been made to comply to the policies of both WP:CCPOL and WP:YESPOV, and that the following is understood, the Topics Section for each episode will be removed until further debating can be made on this subject:

"We (as editors) do not review the show in any way, shape, or form, such as declaring content right or wrong. That is original research unless you can point to a reliable secondary source (a review of the show) that makes that observation." User:GUtt01 09:58, 29 September 2015‎

@GUtt01: and who the fuck are you to arbitrarily decide this stuff? You're no admin, you don't even have a userpage. If you want to do that then go ahead, but your tone leaves a lot to be desired. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by fiat. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: I apologise for the way I sound when I wrote this, but my efforts to expand points on QI's Series Subpages have been stopped by another user, who put forward that the expansion of topics to includes facts talked on the show, violates policies of the website. I don't want to annoy people, but this person started the ball rolling and making this now happen, so to the people who worked on QI, this will be something I fear they will not be happy with. It is best to check the previous topic before this to understand what is going on. User:GUtt01 23:39, 28 September 2015‎
@GUtt01: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point can lead to your account being banned so you may want to reconsider what you are doing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I am not demonstrating a point here. You have stated that there is a misconception with what people put into the episodes, under Topics. It is clear the topic section should be made to comply with the site's policies. User:GUtt01 01:21, 29 September 2015‎
Although I appreciate GUtt01's attempt to correct his/her comments, demanding all content be removed and "further debating" on content that can easily be cleaned up following policy and existing consensus guidelines can be construed as gaming the system. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Shouting (using an entirely uppercase section title), acting like you own articles and using threats ("Any complaints by editors who worked on these should be made to the admins") is not an appropriate thing to do. If you want to make a suggestion, please make it clearly and politely and note that Wikipedia is based around people discussing things, not demanding each other around. You should also note that while administrators have technical abilities that normal users do not, they have no additional powers over article content; arguments are settled using discussion, compromise and consensus, not an admin (or anyone else) imposing their will on someone else. You also do not have the power to prevent people from making good-faith edits ("This format will now be put into place as of 28 September 2015, and will NOT be changed"): this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and is designed to change and improve over time. The idea that any one version of a page is the 'right' one and cannot be improved is ludicrous and goes against everything Wikipedia is about. For anyone interested in the articles for individual series of QI, you may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (B series). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for Editing Dispute, and Fate of QI Series Subpages

The following is something to be best read about:

  1. I committed an act that should not have been committed. I led myself into getting into an Editing Dispute with another user about information on a subpage, and changing it, that led to me acting irresponsibly. As a result I made a Talk section entitled "ALL TOPIC SECTIONS TO BE CLEARED OUT!!", purely out of frustration, annoyance, and anger. Such an action should not have been made. I wish to extend apologies to those I upset/annoyed, from making it, and also for my editing actions after it was put up.
  2. As a result of this Editing Dispute, it has hastened plans to determine what will happen to the Series sub-pages for QI's main article. Another user had been planning to sort this out at a later date, but this dispute has forced them to act sooner on this matter. For further details, check here -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QI (B series)
  3. For those of you who wish to get into a Editing Dispute with another, just one word - "DON'T!" The user I got into a dispute with, was Civil and Wise, and has shown that such a thing is uncreative and potentially disruptive. Remember, that it is not the way you should behave. For guidelines on the best behaviour, it is best to check out this.

In short, the lessons are - 1. Don't get into an Editing Dispute. 2. If there is an issue with a point, calmly discuss in TALK with the User in question, and understand what can be done.

I will take to heart what has happened in this, and again, apologise for my behaviour. (GUtt01 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC))

Are some of the Ref Links to Wiki Articles?

This is a big question, but whilst modifying a section of this whole article on QI, I noticed that the Ref Links in that section were linked to other Wiki Articles (which are sections currently under nomination for deletion). I just wonder if its complying with Wiki policies if a Ref Link is connected to a Wiki Article, or whether it is not, since when an article should be linked to another Wiki Article, we just make a Wiki-Link to it (i.e. anything within these "[[]]"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. The references in question are citations to the original show, not the actual Wikipedia articles. References can and frequently do contain links to other Wikipedia articles that might be relevant or useful (for instance, the page's links to amazon.co.uk). But the reference is to the original media; the fact that it isn't linked to (e.g.) a YouTube video of the episode is a copyright concern and not because the Wikipedia articles being linked to are where the information came from. Not all references have to be online.
Wikipedia itself is definitely not a reliable source because anyone can edit it (and there is no guarantee that content within it is true), but this is not relevant here. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Decided to see what else I can learn by leaving a question on the helpdesk. GUtt01 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem was, that without the needed context the helpdesk answer was imprecise. Having read the above, and seen the article, I can give a somewhat more nuanced answer, GUtt01. What Bilorv says above is quite correct, but IMO not quite complete either. There are some links that are perfectly appropriate in a ref citation. For example in this article, cite 13 (as it stands) reads "Myall, Steve (19 January 2013). "Quite Interesting: 50 amazing facts to celebrate 10 years of QI". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 4 January 2015." with the quoted article title and the words "Daily Mirror" both linked. The latter link goes to Daily Mirror, so people can read the Wikipedia article and form an opinion about the source being cited, if they choose. Similarly, cite 30 which displays as "Mair, Eddie (7 September 2010). "Your perfect dinner date". Radio Times. pp. 10–14." links the title "Your perfect dinner date" and the source "Radio Times", the latter link going to Radio Times. Again perfectly proper. Or cite 41, which reads "Williams, Garry (11 July 2010). "3 Must See". TV Extra. Sunday Herald Sun. p. 3." Here the article title is not linked (perhaps it isn't online) but Sunday Herald Sun the source, is. Again perfectly correct. But then we come to cite 63, and the many like it. It reads: "Series B, Episode 10". QI. Season B. Episode 10. 10 December 2004." I don't recall seeing a cite quite like this. It links "Series B, Episode 10" to (a section of) QI (B series). My view, without consulting any policy or guideline pages, is that while this seems intended to cite the episode itself (which is perfectly proper in many cases) the wiki-link may make it seem to be citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the cited source, nor the work in which the cited source was published. I think that this link, while arguably proper in the article prose where the episode is discussed, should not be in the citation. But as I said, this is a slightly new situation for me, and i would welcome the views of editors experienced in dealing with citations to TV episodes. DES (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I thought this was quite a common phenomenon in articles about television. Take a look at The Simpsons (a featured article), for example. Sources like #107 (Reiss, Mike. (2001). Commentary for "Moaning Lisa", in The Simpsons: The Complete First Season [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.) or #14 ("I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot". The Simpsons. 2004-01-11. Fox.) contain no links other than one to the episode in question, with the latter being very similar to the case here. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering what has been discussed, should it be best that editors can, if possible, cite sources for specific pieces of information related to QI, that are not from Wikipedia itself? And if such facts can't be sourced at all from outside sources, should such information be either kept or removed as a result? I would be willing to change any citation that connects to a Wiki Article, to a proper source. GUtt01 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sandi Toksvig

I have removed Sandi Toksvig from the "presenter" parameter of the infobox multiple times, but various IP editors have kept adding her back. I object per WP:CRYSTAL—Toksvig is not host yet, has not filmed any episodes, series N is a year away etc. The lead already mentions she plans to take over from Fry, as does the production section, but I do not think it is appropriate to list her in the infobox as it is misleading, implying that she has already hosted episodes of the show, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Does anyone object to this? If not, I will remove her name later today and add a hidden comment explaining not to add her back, linking to this discussion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv:I agree with you. She should not be put into that parameter of the infobox. Took her name out, left reason, and hoping editors don't put her in until an episode of series N appears, showing her as host. Recommend, that if it happens again, you do as you suggested about this. On a separate note, when she does host her first episode, would the inclusion of a "Hosts" section in this be appropriate? GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought the Production section (second paragraph) was good enough for now, although a hosts section might possibly be appropriate in the future. I assume that we won't see Toksvig hosting QI until about this time next year, when series N starts, although I haven't found a source that says this. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I think she might likely be hosting series N around Spring 2016, since QI seems to have often done two series during each year, though not sure as such. I don't think she'll come in at Autumn, though that's just my opinion on this. Either way, it would be good, when a Host section is approved, to get info on how Stephen was picked, notable moments and so forth. I seem to recall the news article on his departure mentioned that he would have been a team captain against Alan Davies, and that Michael Palin would have been host.GUtt01 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Naming her as the 2016 presenter is clearly not "unverifiable speculation" as defined in WP:CRYSTAL. It is clearly not unverifiable and is somewhat more concrete than mere speculation. Also, being labelled as 2016, it is clearly a statement of current expectations. Tayste (edits) 08:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Which source says Toksvig will start presenting in 2016? I haven't been able to find one. In the same way that in television articles, the number of episodes count only reflects the number of episodes that have aired, rather than those that are said by reliable sources to be going to air, my stance is that only people that have actually presented an episode should be listed in the infobox, rather than those said by reliable sources to be going to present. Because so many things could happen that would prevent Toksvig from hosting series N, and to list her as a presenter now when she hasn't doing any presenting is misleading. The lead of the article already explains that Toksvig has been hired to host series N; putting her name in the infobox would imply she will host or has already hosted series N, which is either too bold a statement or outright wrong. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Episodes Section - Is Info on Audience getting points, something for another section?

I've been reading through the article, and took a close look at the Episode section, and to the information regarding the Audience winning some episodes, and getting points and such like. But I just wonder if perhaps that information should be somewhere else. I'm all in favour of maybe, expanding the Format and Concept section of the article with perhaps sub-section topic "Scoring System". But wonder what others think.GUtt01 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on QI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Checked by Bilorv at 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Morse code

I recently tried to remove some content about Morse code written by MrMarmite, seemingly based on an item in the episode "Merriment" (which I'll admit I haven't seen). I was silently reverted by Riki in this edit. Given that there have been almost 200 episodes of QI, I don't think this one fact from a segment of a single show is worth mentioning; admittedly, it is a fact related to the show, but I still don't feel it's any more relevant or significant than explaining what every picture shown in the opening is. It's an interesting piece of trivia but not one suited for Wikipedia, in my opinion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Put a bullet point in front of it and it becomes WP:TRIV, "list of miscellaneous information". So yeah, agree, this trivia should be removed unless reference can be supplied that this is further notable per "Theme tune". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This info is about the theme tune, and it's in the theme tune section. It's a core component of the theme tune. How is that not appropriate for this section ? MrMarmite (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Its appropriate when you cite a reliable source that says this was significant in some way (required at this point per WP:BURDEN). Someone simply citing that they saw this is WP:OR, making it nothing more than trivia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it's not a core component of the theme tune. The theme tune and opening credits consists of lots of bits and pieces that might be interesting to mention, but not particularly important: the entire opening sequence takes up just a few seconds out of a 30/45 minute episode. A hidden Morse code message – that no-one noticed for thirteen years – is not important to understanding the theme tune; nor is the "Bonus Bits" on the website noteworthy. We don't describe every page on the QI website in detail – why this one?
But it's 40-odd seconds that appear at the start of every single episode and has therefore played out for more than an hour over the course of the entire run. It's a recognisable and key part of the show, and it seems strange to see any show page not even have a cursory mention of the opening titles (currently there's nothing), let alone one such as this where the style of the titles is quite unique, obviously had some work put into them (and indeed they changed completely with series N) with potentially a lot of hidden meaning or at least parts that require explanation for the less polymathematic amongst us, and may attract quite a bit of interest from people seeking such. Indeed, it's the thing that drove me here to the page today. I had fully expected to find that information on WP and have come up disappointed, and furthermore there isn't even a basic description of its visual style (surely something that can be sourced with a link to a video stream - is the primary material itself not good enough to avoid accusations of OR? I thought the point of demanding sources is so third parties can verify what's written, rather than having to take your word for it, which common sense suggests isn't a problem when said third party can just take less than a minute to watch the actual footage) or even that of the theme music and its composer (the latter of which could at least be pulled from the IMDB copy of the credits that also play out for ~40 seconds at the end of each show). Why not? Assuming there's a better answer to that than "typical and tiresome wiki editor bickering and edit wars"? 51.7.16.171 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Arno Matthias: the problem is not that the Morse code paragraph is unsourced, and therefore not verifiable, but that no secondary sources mention it, and the information is therefore undue weight / of no more significance than any other item on the show. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sirens

Sirens should be referred to as Klaxons throughout this article, as that is the term they use. 92.11.7.16 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough in a more recent show it's been pointed out that the sound itself isn't actually a klaxon as commonly named and is actually a combination of several sirens, bells and other alarms. I think someone even got a forfeit for saying "klaxon" when played the sound effect and asked what it was... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"Klaxon", it was pointed out in that episode, is a trademark/brand name. Thus the "sirens" should be referred to as "sirens", since they are not actually Klaxons. Huw Powell (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on QI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Part of a series of disruptive RMs proposed by this block evading IP. Jenks24 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


QI → QI (UK TV series) "QI" should be redirected to Qi. There are other TV shows called "QI". 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:189E:A4B0:6469:D4DE (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - that's no reason to propose this move. Unreal7 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QI. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeated name in Appearances list

Matt Lucas appears in both the 2 Appearances and 4 Appearances lists. I would fix it but have no idea which one is correct. Remarcsd (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QI. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on QI. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on QI. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on QI. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

Under Format and Concept it states "The show's other panellists mainly come from a comedy background" which is subjected to a "Citation needed". I'm not sure of the correct protocol for removing this but can I just point out that according to this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_panellists there have been 137 separate panellists - of which 87 (yep, I checked them individually - skiving off work ;)) - are PRIMARILY (as of May 2018) known as stand-up comedians, and many of the rest fit into the "comedy background" genre (raconteur Brian Blessed, comedian-turned presenter Sue Perkins, comedy writer Charlie Higson, actor and comedian Hugh Laurie, writer and comedian Victoria Wood etc). I don't think it's necessary to have a reference to an article in the New York Times to accept that the panellists are mostly from a background in comedy, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.80.241 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender breakdown of panellists

I reverted this addition to the "Controversies" section, and have been reverted back. The section consists of a percentage breakdown of episodes by number of female panellists from the Daily Mirror, and a quote from Toksvig published in The Guardian about her hosting the show, indirectly alluding to her being "the first female host of a mainstream comedy panel show on British TV" (from the source). The first part is unacceptable as the Daily Mirror is a tabloid and definitely cannot be used as a source for something described as a "controversy"; see Wikipedia:Suggested sources#Current news. The second is not really a poignant quote, and we mention the more important context (first female ...) under "Production" ("Lloyd said that Toksvig will be "the first female host of a mainstream comedy panel show on British television"").

Don't get me wrong, I think the show should be criticised for selecting so few female panellists, but I can't find a reliable source for this, so it can't be included in Wikipedia. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it not just be enough to use the existing list of panellists, sort them into two bins by the gender they appear to express, and divide by the number of episodes? It's not OR / CN when all the data is already present and sourced on WP, right? IDK about quotes, but on a factual / statistical front, it really doesn't seem like a complicated or ambiguous thing. We know the guests' genders (or sexes, anyhow; on a gender expression front they have been almost, but not entirely exclusively binary), and how many times each has appeared, and how many shows there have been... the rest is just arithmetic, which as a basic universal law shouldn't need additional citation. 51.7.16.171 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
As a result of critism regarding the lack of women on panel shows, BBC banned all-male panels on comedy shows in 2014, as reported by The Telegraph. This prompted more discussions, with BBC's director of TV Danny Cohen explaining the reasoning behind the decision in an interview with The Observer, saying that "shows without women are unacceptable". Dara O Briain commented that "legislating for a token woman isn't much help" in an interview with RadioTimes. In 2017, creator John Lloyd told Cheltenham Literature Festival that "arguing a BBC quota for women panellists risked being mere tokenism", while his wife who is a director of QI Limited revealed that female comedians don't want to appear on the show, as reported by The Telegraph. Clem Bastow of The Sydney Morning Herald was supportive of this decision, saying that "left to their own devices, the producers of these shows are clearly failing massively when it comes to putting together line-ups that aren't just endless parades of the same old white men [...] the producers might actually have to uncover some new talent instead of falling back on their trusty speed dial." Finally, i believe we could cite the stats provided by Daily Mirror, in order to provide context for the readers. - Radiphus (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Those articles from The Observer and Radio Times don't mention QI specifically, so I don't think they're relevant enough to include, but the others look excellent. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realise Dara O Briain was talking as a host of one of the other "male-dominated" panel shows. However, i believe Cohen's statement and way of thinking concerned QI as much as any other show that was airing on BBC at the time. - Radiphus (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, yeah, I think we can include the Observer source but not with any phrasing that suggests QI specifically was a reason for the changes, just as general context. It's relevant to say that the changes apply to QI and explain why they were introduced but any more is SYNTH/OR. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the article to include some of the content discussed here. I have also added some statements Sandi Toksvig had made one year before she became the host of QI, as i believe they also help provide some context. I hope that's fine with you. - Radiphus (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it looks excellent. Thanks for doing that. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that. - Radiphus (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sections

I propose that "International versions" and "The QI Test" are merged into one "Versions and spinoffs" section, with each as a subsection. Your opinions? YttriumShrew (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC) YttriumShrew (talk) 1:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

reason for Fry leaving

My guess is that as long as the Daily Mail is the only source for Davies' allegations, editors stayed clear of reporting on them. But we don't have to use the Daily Mail for our source, we can reference The Sydney Morning Herald (a source so reliable it's not even mentioned by WP:RSP). Sure it links to the Daily Mail, but clearly the SMH has independently concluded the reporting is trustworthy, or it would not have published this article: [1]. Since the article otherwise has nothing to say about why the show switched hosts, other than Fry's own classy but politically correct "it was time to move on" stance, let's complement that. CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QI/Archive_2&oldid=1218072438"