Talk:Quote... Unquote

Radio: UK Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is within the scope of the UK Radio taskforce. New members are always welcome!

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Wrongly named?

Isn't it Quote... Unquote? --Oldak Quill 00:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most boring programme on Radio 4

Surely this article should give some mention of the fact that Quote... Unquote is the least funny, most boring, smuggest waste of time on all of Radio 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.80.9 (talk)

It's certainly boring, unfunny and smug but most boring? Surely that honour must go to File On 4.

I think the most important thing anyone could say about quote unquote is that is is crushingly, unremittingly dire. In fact, it's a national disgrace. Oz naughten 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now, Oz. It's far far worse than THAT. I believe the SAS use tapes of Quote ... Unquote as part of their torture-resistance training. (Though Mrs Trellis of North Wales and Eric Pode of Croydon are said to be fans.) -- Picapica 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, I believe the references to it being boring and pointless on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue deserve a mention.

Well, having defended Quote...unquote, I do agree with the above comment about the most boring programme on Radio Four being File on Four. However, the main reason for communicating tonight (March 22) is to say that there should be some indication as to how the programme got its title. Isn't it from the river users, who also inspired the name of Mark Twain? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Quote ... Unquote

I shall respond to the above comments by saying, first of all, that I rather like "Quote..Unquote". However, I do not think it necessary for people to leave such comments here, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a springboard for people to air their personal views. I do have views on Radio Four programmes, but I thought that the purpose of a "Discussion" of an article on a radio programme was meant to be to help the article to maintain accuracy and comprehensiveness. ACEOREVIVED 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my comment was addressed to the question of comprehensiveness, as raised by the anonymous editor at 82.47.80.9, even if -- like you, Aceo -- I introduced it with an opinion... Picapica (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions versus information

Well, if we are going to litter this page with personal opinions about Radio 4 comedies, I could say awful I find most of today's sitcoms, such as "Double Science" or "Fags, Mags and Bags", and say that these are what I would describe as - to use an expression above - examples of a "national disgrace", and go on to say that I, for one, am much more taken with Radio 4 comedy if it is a panel game (such as Quote...Unquote) than a sitcom (there have been a few, and it is a few, good sitcoms at 6: 30 on Radio 4, such as Linda Smith's "A Brief History of Time-Wasting"). However, this would not be information to add to comprehensiveness of this page, as this would only be my opinion about Radio 4 comedies, and to incorporate it into the article would violate the Wikipedia NPOV policy. If there is one comedy on Radio 4 which could be described as a "national disgrace", it is Safety Catch, because the morality of making a comedy about its subject-matter has been voiced on the Radio 4 programme "Feedback". Now, whereas to say what I think about Radio 4 comedies would only be my opinion, to echo what has been said about Radio 4 comedies on Feedback: Radio Series would be informative. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]