Talk:The Unbelievable Truth (radio show)

Changes to the rules
Mitchell has started awarding points for 'accidental truths', so the maximum score is no longer 20. Any objections to amendment?13djb13 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I think it should be changed. ISD (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given it's been almost a year since I wrote that, and no-one's objected (my doesn't time fly), I shall make the edit.13djb13 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to Names
Links to names in the table do not need to be linked again if they are already mentioned. They should only be linked if they are new. ISD 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Would I Lie To You?
Has anyone elso noticed the similarities between this and the TV series 'Would I Lie To You'? Doozy88 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the formats are very different. WILTY is more about lying about oneself, and is a deeply personality driven show. The humour in WILTY is derived from the cross-interrogations, which aren't a feature in TUbT, where the humour is derived primarily from the monologues, attempts by pannelists to undermine the format, and banter. 13djb13 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Mostly OK in respect of criterion 1(a) apart from the following line in the Reception section, “Many reviews praised Mitchell's presentation of the programme, saying, "Mitchell’s quick, intelligent wit gives it an edge that it would otherwise lack."[6]” - did “many reviews” (of which only one is referenced) use that exact quote? I think not. Criterion 1(b) appears to be met.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Line “However, critics have complained that the programme is "Too scripted" and would benefit from more improvisation.” in Reception section is not referenced and fails criterion 2(a). Not sure about whether criterion 2(b) passes in respect of the quotes chosen in the Reception section; higher quality sources, such as reviews in national newspapers, should be used rather than web-based reviews. Passes in respect of criterion 2(c).
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fails in respect of 3(a), addresses major aspects of the topic, in that no details are supplied in respect of the creation, development and production of the programme. Fails in respect of 3 (b) in that the list of guests for every episode would constitute unnecessary detail and would quickly become unwieldy if more episodes are made. Failure in this area represents the most serious deficiency in the article as it currently stands
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Not applicable. Although not needed for GA, suitable images are desirable; I appreciate this can be difficult for a radio programme though!

While length is not a criterion for passing or failing GA, I should add that the article's brevity contributes to the failure under criterion 3(a). Really, as it stands at the moment, this article is little more than a stub and needs to be further fleshed out to stand any chance of passing GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — Joe King 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New series
I have added information about the production of Series 2, which has just been completed. I attended all three recordings at the Shaw Theatre and can vouch that my information is accurate! I will continue to update the page as the series is broadcast with air dates and guest lists if wanted.

I am also able to add a photo of the ticket style for the recordings if desired; radio shows don't exactly have a wealth of pictorial evidence! - Amanda Prefect (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing series
Of an ongoing series, any description which begins, Its current, fifteenth, series... cannot long remain true and must be considered a housekeeping nuisance.

Related infobox entries such as Number of series or Number of episodes will almost certainly be wrong, absent an unfailingly committed editor or a self-updating facility--neither of which is in evidence here.

I hesitate to obliterate the offending edits, mainly out of fear that I am unaware of Wikicode which might maintain the information without manual intervention. Patronanejo (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting that articles should never require updating--the List of episodes is a section that attracts timely maintenance. Where demonstrably less conspicuous, details certain to be regularly- and repeatedly obsoleted are less successful and might wait until they have stabilised somewhat. Patronanejo (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Theme tune of programme
Does anyone know what the theme tune of the programme is called? If so it could go in the article - or is the theme written specially for the programme?Vorbee (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of episodes
In the Info the number of episodes is only up to season 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AniraSilv (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)