Talk:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue

What exactly is wrong with the 'tone'?

Is it just that it seems overly 'knowing' and familiar? Samantha is introduced in the article as 'the lovely Samantha' &c. Anyone care to give us a clue (drum, drum, cymbal) as to what needs improving? o~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolinol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "tone" tag was added as a drive-by act on 29 June 2009. Although the tag itself claims that there will be discussion here, there wasn't. If the tagger doesn't get round to explaining their problem then I don't think the tag has to stand. Indeed, I think there's chapter and verse somewhere on this which permits the removal of drive-bys. So, I am going to remove it, with the plea that if someone thinks a tag needs adding they shouldn't just do half the process - they should come here and do the other half, which is to tell us what the issue is that they feel needs attention. I don't mean to sound rude about this but I do think it is a basic courtesy to other editors. Best wishes to all, 94.170.104.219 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob Brydon & Delilah

Coincidentally on June 24th when BBC4 aired the last (shame; I hadn't noticed that a new series had started) episode of the series featuring Rob Brydon's mimicry of Tom Jones singing Delilah, BBC7 repeated an episode from June 1997 where Barry Cryer failed to duplicate the feat, Humphrey commenting that the audience were doing better.

"The fact that none of the participants can really sing (and, in the case of Jeremy Hardy and Stephen Fry, really can't sing) is played for laughs, as is the (alleged) inability of the show's pianist, Colin Sell."... Does Rob Brydon's performance merit the modification of this sentence to, perhaps, "The fact that very few of the participants can really sing..."? I'm sure we've had a few decent performances over the years ;-) Emyr42 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like the juxtaposition of "can really" and "really can't". Maybe "...not many of the participants..." or just omit the "very"? Both are good compromises. Chris 42 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Hawks has also done some very good singing on the show, to the amazed gasps of the audience, on a 2002 edition. And he's had a few hit singles hither and yon. Famous Mortimer 14:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise Bill Bailey, in his appearances. --Tailkinker 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Samantha

I've read the "Samantha in the archives" bit several times, and this Yank still doesn't get it. Could someone explain it for non-Brits please? Stan 13:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the improved replacement, although ironically I now get the original version too, ha ha ha. I suspect the delivery is key too... :-) Stan 16:14, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You couldn't explain the original to me could you? I can't seem to parse it into a joke-- User:GWO

Think of other spellings for "wax", especially ones that end in "s" :-) Stan 16:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

AHA! Got it!

---

Humour-challenged readers aside, I wonder does the article really need explanations of the jokes? I think it spoils it. After all, any joke that needs explaining immediately ceases to be funny, so for those readers that do get it, the explanation is superfluous and spoils the fun, and for those that don't, well, having to have it explained defeats the purpose. I think the explanations should go! Graham 04:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The explanations are not for Brits, they're for the high-school students in Nagaland who probably won't have enough cultural context to have a chance at getting them. Stan 04:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I realise that, but my opinion is unchanged - if you don't get it, you don't get it - having it explained ruins the joke for those who do, and for those who previously didn't. I don't get jokes in Japanese (or even German come to that, and I'm married to one) but I don't expect explanations! :) If there isn't enough cultural context to understand something, the answer is to obtain that cultural context by whatever means (education is the usual method), or else not to bother - in which case you haven't missed much. An explanation to my mind is just too easy!! Graham 04:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a joke book, and it is the vehicle for learning about other cultures. One of the longterm plans for WP is to distribute CD versions to remote parts of the globe, and those places will literally have no other means of filling in the blanks. So let's not deliberately make blank spaces for readers for no deeper reason than our own amusement. Stan 13:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Many speakers of english may not know British slang expressions such as "jacks off". -- Tarquin 17:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, isn't "jack's off" American slang? - we just borrowed it back to make a joke.... but seriously, point taken. I'll get me coat.... Graham 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - should have discussed before editing. FWIW, IMHO, if you get it, then the joke is still funny even with the explanation; but if you don't get the joke then it is helpful to explain why it is a joke (the same point would apply to jokes in German or Swahili or whatever that may otherwise be impenetrable for an English-speaker like me - I would want to know what the joke meant and why it was funny). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A quick comment from a lurker/casual reader. It might be good to explain the slang term "Gordon Bennett" for non Brits/Anglophiles. I suspect at this point one could even make a page for it. Additional comment: the 4 people on stage are "panelists", not "panellists". I'd make the changes myself, but I don't yet have a proper account and so will just leave this here in TALK.

See Gordon Bennett, which is already linked, albeit discreetly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to state for the record that for the BBC's Archive Treasure Hunt I donated reel-to-reel FM recordings of three 1975 episodes that had been wiped (see History. Lee M 18:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hope you made mp3 copies because we're not going to hear them for years otherwise.

Amusing inaccuracy

81.96.73.99 changed this passage regarding Mornington Cresent

Ostensibly it is an obscure game of extreme complexity, involving the naming of London Underground stations in convoluted patterns not readily discernible by the observer. In fact the rules are completely fictitious,

to

Ostensibly it is an obscure game of extreme complexity, involving the naming of London Underground stations in convoluted patterns not readily discernible by the observer. In fact the rules are available from good libraries,

I reverted it, but thought that it was funny, so I put it here. Tim Ivorson 09:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter. The secret should be preserved.--Mongreilf 11:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the part about rules could be replaced by a link, for example -

A summary of the rules can be found in the Mornington Crescent article.

The article has a spoiler warning and so might be a better way of doing it.Alecto 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The LU station, the street or the game? Simply south 17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing round(s)

Why has nobody mentioned "Good News, Bad News?"

I've added it, but there's loads of games we don't mention. A more exhaustive list is at [1], which we link to. I'm not sure whether we should attempt something more comprehensive or not. They already take up more than half of the article. Any thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the games' taking up more than half of the article; they take up a lot more than half of the programme.

Sven

I took out the following on the grounds that they make jokes implying Lionel Blair is gay every week, so I doubt this was the reason and Sven is already mentioned anyway. --Cherry blossom tree 21:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Earlier editions sometimes used a different scorer, Sven. As the sexual innuendo and double entendres implied that Sven was gay, this 'character' was dropped as such humour became unacceptable in main stream british comedy."

Seems a bit silly to say that when you've got so much of British humour relying on sexuality (the only gay in the village, Ted and Ralph, the "how very dare you" guy, etc)

Following the recent start of the 52nd series in June 2009 with Stephen Fry as rotating chairman I think we can safely say 'such humour' is no longer considered unacceptable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.70.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sven was back on the first episode of the 52nd series, with Fry in the chair. Markb (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Whose Line

This seems to be roughly the same idea as the show "Whose line is it Anyway?" Any connection? Aristotle2600 18:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that Whose line is it Anyway? grew out of the fact that ISIHAC was then (as I remember it) going through something of a low patch. This was before it freshened things up with new guests and (I'm guessing) more advance preparation, and achieved its current cult status. However, ISIHAC never had the central emphasis on spontaneous improvisation within a given situation. It's a spoof quiz show -- "the antidote to panel games" as it used to be subtitled. Flapdragon 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It still has that subtitle, at least as of last week's show 8-) Daibhid C 17:24 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Whose Line" grew more out of the improvisation of ideas from the audience that started in The Masterson Inheritance, which itself sprang from the live shows performed by The Comedy Store Players. Spaced1999 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think possibly not- not only did they not share any cast members but ISIHAC has a far better claim to have influenced the Comedy Store (much as I'm sure the original Comedy Store Players would hate to admit it), the Masterson Inheritance and Whose Line. Famous Mortimer 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything it could be said that "Whose Line is it Anyway" seems to be the same as ISIHAC, seeing as the latter was around WAY before the former! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Games section

I just removed cow, lake, bomb and good news/bad news. The games section is taking over the article and these two are very infrequently played. What might be worth doing is splitting them off into a Games in I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue article and leaving a briefer summary here.--Cherry blossom tree 23:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of splitting the games off into a new article is a very good one. The article as it stands is really far too long but it's also very enjoyable so I've no intention of trimming it.

Cooke (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In a way this has already been done. See List of games on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Simply south (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First Ever Episode rebroadcast

I don't know if this is suitable, and if so, where it would go, so I'm putting it here for now.

The first episode, originally broadcast on April 11, 1972, was rebroadcast by the BBC on April 3, 2006 by the BBC using a recording recovered through their Archive Treasure Hunt scheme. It was introduced as a panel game (rather than the antidote to panel games), featuring Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden, Jo Kendall and Bill Oddie, with Humphrey Lyttelton in the chair and Dave Lee at the piano. It was produced by David Hatch.

• Round 1 was also the very first One Song to the Tune of Another. Graeme and Jo had to sing Three Blind Mice to the tune of Ol' Man River, while Tim and Bill had to sing a Song of Sixpence to the tune of These Foolish Things.
• Round 2 required the teams to read out an excerpt of a script in a given accent. Tim and Bill had to read an excerpt of Dr. Finlay's Casebook in a German accent while Graeme and Jo had to read an excerpt of Til Death Us Do Part in a Chinese accent.
• Round 3 required the teams to sing in an animal's voice. Jo and Graeme had to sing The Sound of Music in a sheep's voice while Bill and Tim had to sing Hello, Dolly! in a chicken's voice.
• Round 4 gave the teams two minutes in which to improvise a situation.
  • Jo and Graeme's scene was an elocution class where a well-known sports commentator (possibly referring to Eddie Waring) was instructing a dumb blonde. They had to try to include sticking plaster, a liberty bodice and a rubber duck in the scene.
  • Bill and Tim's scene was a TV chat show where the host was interviewing Long John Silver. They had to try to include a kangaroo, nude ladies, and a tin opener in the scene. However they overstepped their two minutes and had to be buzzed out by Humphrey Lyttleton (nowadays he uses a hooter).
• Round 5 was the first round of Word for Word. Tim linked Graeme's "idiot" to Jo's "hydrochloric acid". Jo linked Tim's "mother" to Bill's "egg". Bill linked Graeme's "Tony Blackburn" to Jo's "nausea". Graeme failed to link either Bill's "pomegranate" to Tim's "nun" or Tim's "Hamburg" to Bill's "green light".
• Round 6 was a calypso improvisation round where the subject of Jo and Graeme's calypso was a cucumber while that of Bill and Tim's calypso was an armadillo.
• Round 7 was a variant of Name That Tune, except that the opposing team la'd the tune on one note. Tim and Bill la'd Oh We Do Like To Be Beside The Seaside which Graeme guessed, while Jo and Graeme la'd God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen which almost exclusively uses equal length notes and is therefore virtually impossible to guess.
• Round 8 was almost a repeat of round 2 except that this time Jo and Graeme had to read Dr. Finlay's Casebook in an Australian accent while Tim and Bill had to read Till Death Us Do Part in a posh accent.

At the end of the show both teams were found to have scored 11 marks.

...and it is being re-broadcast again (as I type!) – on BBC 7. It will be available on their "listen again" feature for the next week. Listen and enjoy!! -- EdJogg 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's on the 30th anniversary CD too. Nick8325 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Guest panellists

Unless anyone can give me a really good reason not to, I'm going to add back the list of guest panellists. The article is supposed to be encylopaedic. There is no reason to be unencyclopaedic in an electronic format, as there is when paper page space is a valuable resource. Removing games because "they dominate the article" is equally ridiculous. Varitek 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are using a different definition of encyclopaedic than me. Just because a piece of information exists doesn't mean it should go in the article. This article is designed to explain to people what the show is and I don't think a list of 20 people who have appeared on the show (not even a comprehensive one) really helps. If you want to make a List of people who have appeared on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue then it would be relevant there (but it may well be nominated for deletion.) As for the list of games, there are hundreds and hundreds of them. You have to draw the line somewhere and again i don't really see how including a full paragraph on games that have been played once or twice really adds anything.--Cherry blossom tree 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedic - broad in scope". "Encyclopaedia" - "comprehensive summary of knowledge". Broad, comprehensive. In a paper encyclopaedia, things need to be left out for reasons of space. In Wikipedia, we don't. This article is designed to explain to people what the show is. I rather think it's designed to be an encyclopaedic article about the show. The summary explains what the show is. The article is for encyclopaedic knowledge of the show. A list of people who has appeared on the show is both encyclopaedic and useful. A description of all the games is both encyclopaedic and useful. You need a better reason for removing correct, useful information from an article than an apparent dislike of completeness, in favour of brevity. Varitek 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're keen on quoting from WP:NOT, then "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If I may also quote from Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, "There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." Just because things don't need to be left out for reasons of space doesn't mean they shouldn't be left out for reasons of editorial judgement.

If Wikipedia was trying to be an encyclopaedia in the sense you're suggesting then there would be articles on every person, game, band etc there has ever been but it manifestly isn't. some pieces of information are useful to an article, others (while undoubtedly true and relevant) are not. A list of 30 plus people who have appeared on the show and at least 200 games that have been played is not the sort of information that appears in an encyclopaedia. By the arguments you've presented you could justify including the date and location of every recording, who was present and what games were played but it would make for a ridiculous article. The information is all available on other websites, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should include it.--Cherry blossom tree 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because things don't need to be left out for reasons of space doesn't mean they shouldn't be left out for reasons of editorial judgement. - Sure. I think you lack editorial judgement. I think that a complete list of guest participants is something the article should be aiming for, not something to rip out. Still, do what the hell you like. I'm sure you were going to anyway. Varitek 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a full list of guests somewhere but I think giving over 30 lines in the middle of an article to a list of names when one line would do makes ther article worse. Also please give me some credit - I'm not sure what I've done to merit "Still, do what the hell you like. I'm sure you were going to anyway.". All I've done is express my opinion. I haven't even reverted you. --Cherry blossom tree 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just visited the article trying to identify someone I half-recognised from a snippet of the show, and the list answered my query. I say keep it. 213.48.73.84 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheddar Gorge

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is not to be confused with Pinochet Gorge, in which the object is to avoid starting a sentence...

Games

What i propose is to simply move this to say List of games in ISIHAC except leave brief descriptions of the most common and well known games on the start page. The current page is already getting too long. Simply south 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

After 1 week there are no objections so i am going ahead. Simply south 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just removed this paragraph, in reference to the Alfredo Garcia running gag:

On one occasion, Paul Merton made the reference and, whilst not actually booed, the gasp from the audience suggested he had made a faux pas in usurping Graeme. When Graeme later made his own joke, the applause seemed all the louder. Merton has not repeated the error since.

Didn't happen that way, Paul's joke elicited not a single gasp and Graeme's from later in the same episode did receive a cheer, but not hugely bigger than Paul's. I don't think the audience minded in the slightest. Famous Mortimer 09:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD (renaming actually)

If anyone is interested, I have put up Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue for renaming on WP:CFD although it is probably minor. Simply south 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As it isn't immediately clear, the proposal is to rename the category from "...A Clue" to "...a Clue", ie with a lower-case 'a'. Your support for renaming might be needed, as at least one contributor has recommended 'Delete'!

EdJogg 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WTBS recordings

This is the text of the Sunday Times article I was given, but it doesn't have a date.

Julie Andrews to sing to Brits during nuclear attack

by Nicholas Hellen/Media Correspondent

THE national anthem was deemed too solemn, the disco hit Stayin' Alive rejected for being too frivolous. BBC executives preferred the music of Julie Andrews when they chose programmes to be aired if Britain came under nuclear attack. The BBC, it has emerged, distributed a supply of comedy, drama and religious programmes to an underground network of radio stations intended to maintain morale while the survivors of a nuclear blast sheltered in their cellars. The cache, packed in black boxes, included The Sound of Music, Andrews's 1965 hit.

The secret schedule was intended to be broadcast for up to 100 days of nuclear conflict. The radio stations, equipped with iron rations, tennis tables and bunk beds, were maintained until 1993.

Peter Donaldson, Radio 4's chief announcer, was designated the official "voice of doom". He recorded a warning of impending nuclear attack, which was to be broadcast on all television and radio stations. It was accompanied by "Dalek" music and strong pulses of light.

The 20 underground stations were controlled from Wood Norton, a mansion near Evesham, not far from Worcester. Staff, drawn from BBC local radio, were vetted by Brigadier Ronald Stoneham, who reported to the Cabinet Office from his base at BBC Broadcasting House.

Producers or presenters who might pose a security risk were discreetly ruled out by Stoneham and his colleagues placing Christmas tree symbols in their personnel files. Others turned down the opportunity of serving the nation because they were not allowed to take their families with them. One insider said: "I can't blame them for deciding there were better ways to go than to sit in a bunker with a group of local radio engineers."

Jim Black, a former BBC executive, assembled a schedule of classic radio comedy, including Round the Horn, I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue, and Hancock's Half Hour. Drama was culled from The Afternoon Play and Thirty Minute Theatre.

This weekend Black admitted that some BBC managers refused to take the project seriously. "We had to run occasional trials to create a sense of realism," he said.

Dame Vera Lynne said this weekend that she was "delighted" that her version of We'll Meet Again, a patriotic anthem in the second world war, had been selected for the cold war. "For this to be chosen ahead of all the pop songs that went

in between shows that in conflict, a certain character is required."

Dbromage 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Audio releases

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has the episode where Barry sings "You're Getting to be a Habit with Me" to the tune of "William Tell" been released on any of the CDs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.21.246 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Doesn't seem to have been. Nick8325 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Possibly you could book him and get him to sing it in his act? 86.183.174.116 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast list update

It's worth updating the broadcast list now since the most recent series of the sohw has just finished. Looneyman 19:12, 15 July 2007 (GMT)

tours

I just read the paragraph on the tours and I didn't get it. What's done there? Are there four panalists performing a live show just like the recorded ones? Maybe just playing the games that are thought of to be the best. Or is there just a guest panalist how introduces recordings of the best shows? -- JanCK (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a live show with (when I went to see it) Tim Brooke-Taylor, Barry Cryer, Graeme Garden and Jeremy Hardy but, unlike the normal recordings, the show on the tour is scripted, with the panellists re-performing old games. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Future of the programme

Email received from Jon Naismith this morning. Saddening, but let's hope it's not the last we've heard of dear old Humph:

"Dear I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue Mailing List Member,

I was expecting to announce the venues and dates of recordings in the Spring series of "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue", but unfortunately I've had to put these plans on hold as Humphrey Lyttelton has been detained in hospital for an operation to repair an aortic aneurysm.

We are unclear precisely how long Humph's recovery period will be, but it seems very likely that the Spring Series of "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" will have to be postponed.

Humph is otherwise fine and in very good spirits. However, if you wish to write him a get well message, send him an email to this address with the subject 'Get Well Humph' and I'll print it off for him. I imagine it'll be nice for him to have something to read in his hospital bed.

There's no need to worry if you have tickets for our "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" Tour Show at the Bournemouth Pavilion this Tuesday (22nd April). I'm delighted to say that ISIHAC favourite Rob Brydon has kindly agreed to deputise for Humph.

With best wishes,

Jon Naismith Producer, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue"

Martyn Smith (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow from this, Humph died today, as reported by BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7367385.stm

This will need reflecting in the article fully in due course as it will either bring an end to the show or change it dramatically. Either way, Humph's spell as chairman will become a Historic reference and need to reflect this.

As I say though, just a note of it should do for now until we have more details of what will happen to the show. Rest in peace, Humph. We'll miss you!! 172.202.34.178 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the three existing regulars have always made it very clear that they would not continue the show without Humph.86.17.53.21 (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Any sources on that one? 172.202.34.178 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

'fraid I don't have any sources either, but I remember hearing the same thing, just can't remember where or when! EdJogg (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a source, but a poster on this forum suggests a recent radio programme about ISIHAC suggested they won't continue without him. To be honest, I don't think you could ever find someone that could replace Humph. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought about Willie Rushton. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. ISD (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that ISD, I was merely pointing out what someone had said. I wasn't suggesting it should be used as a source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. ISD (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK :). I was merely pointing out what someone had said, but since I didn't hear the radio programme in question (and could find no official reference to it), I figured the forum would just do as a point of reference. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamish and Dougal

Does anyone know if Hamish and Dougal will continue? Simply south (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The future of the whole show is currently in a tentative state. No doubt an announcement will be made some time in the future about what is being continued and what isn't. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Total number of broadcast shows

I've just added the total number of (non compilation) episodes, based on the numbers in the list above (simply as I counted them and wanted to save someone else the effort) - hopefully I'm right, but someone else might want to check my maths. (It's quite nice that there's one for every day of the year, shame they haven't all been saved!) The Stumo (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Past tense

What a fabulous artice! I'm so glad this is on WP. I hope I can contribute from time to time.

I just thought I'd make an observation about the use of tenses. Some parts of this article describe aspects of the show in the present tense, which is fine as it seems ISIHAC is going to continue, but there are other statments which refer to the late Humph which should be in some form of past tense. Obviously it's a bit tricky as we do not yet know which traditions of the show will continue follwing his loss, bt it's something we should keep an eye on.

And so as the transcluded template of time is reformatted by the sockpuppet of destiny, and the featured article of fate dissolves into the angry edit war of enternity, it's the end of my post. Cnbrb (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much about individual games

Since there is a separate article about recurring (and indeed even one-off) games in ISIHAC, do we really need to put detailed explanations in this main article? SimonTrew (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Humph hosted it "from his inception"

There recently seems to be something of a difference of opinion   between User:179.109.201.24 (who it's fairly clear is also User:163.252.129.59, no sockpuppetry there just dynamic IP change) and other editors, about whether the lead should say that Humph was chairman of the show "from its inception". (Pretty much all the edits between these two. User:179.109.201.24 has characterised this as a "revert war" and it's time that the this went to discussion.

To put my hat into the ring, I think the lead should say that Humph was chairman from the start. (The word "inception" I am happy to change to "start", "beginning" or some such.) I don't think that implies he was the only chairman; the History section explains that Cryer shared the role for the first series; however the lead gives a general introduction to the article, and the fact that Cryer chaired a few is not relevant enough to go in the lead. (So little relevant to Cryer himself, it seems, that he doesn't mention it in the book I cited, which presumably is WP:PRIMARY but better to have it than not, I think.)

I think some version of the sentence should be reinstated, since it's important to say in the lead that Humph was the chairman. If that has to be qualified, then so be it, but let's not make the qualification longer than the statement itself (e.g. let's just put "Humph was chairman almost from the start" or "Humph was the perennial chairman from the start, with few exceptions". It's clear from various references that Humph was intended only for the role of chairman and not as a panellist, and he did in fact host the first episode. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Si. I'd agree that it's crucial that Lyttleton has to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. I've reworded a bit so that it's (briefly) noted in the lead that Lyttleton shared the chair in the first season, and have restored the rest of the sentence. The IP's removal of mention of Lyttleton's role from the first paragraph of the lead made the second paragraph confusing (who is this Lyttleton fellow?). Hopefully this will prevent further reversion. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt! Repetition.

The "Chairmen since Lyttelton" section consists of information that also appears in the "History" section . I'm not sure which section got there first. But it's almost like people add these things without having read the whole article.

John Humphrys

I'm sure I did cite which episode this came from, but it has since been removed. I can't find the particular edit which includes it. Can anyone help? 2.97.166.188 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't, so I'm back where I started. 92.20.156.60 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Since my uncited 'fact' has been removed, I'll leave it here, in the hope that someone can find the episode. John Humphyrs appeared on the show but they were running out of time and he could only say "Hello". (This is sometime when Jack Dee hosted the show if that helps you find it.) 92.20.163.116 (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone find the show with Alan Titchmarsh's Gardener's Question Time, by any chance? 86.171.43.100 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to other shows?

The section in which it is sugested that other games such as Call My Bluff, My Music and Just A Minute are like ISIHAC entirely misses the point that, while granted the winning is not the main thing, they are shows in which the competition is real, and where it is possible to win (Just A Minute is recorded live, without edits or retakes, in real time; anyone is able to count up the points as they are earned). It isn’t possible to “win” ISIHAC, as it is never a competition (scoring is either not given, or given in a meaningless or partisan fashion), it just takes the format of a panel game. Jock123 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

German National Anthem

Is it just me or does the opening theme start with a sample from the German national anthem? Links for comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDlo0Ys1VNw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SkQKpZMZ5M 88.104.249.132 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Series 73/74 broadcast dates

Under Broadcast list the first two episodes of the 73rd series are listed as being broadcast on 11 and 18 November 2020, respectively, but the BBC's episode pages on those episodes [2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pw82 and [3]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000q3gr show them as being first broadcast on 30 November and 7 December 2020 respectively. Series 74 eps 1-4 were (according to the BBC's website) were broadcast on successive Mondays over the following four weeks, ending on 4 January 2021, but the article has them broadcast on 25 November - 29 December. Where did the information in the article come from? Wocky (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)