Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Assessment unit

I noted that the project's banner was set up for assessments, and that some of its articles had already been assessed. On that basis, I set up the assessment unit at Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/Assessment. Feel free to use it. If you have any questions, let me know. John Carter 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Unit

Shouldn't a link fot the assessment unit (Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/Assessment) be added to the main project page, or on the to do list to bring it to more people's attention. Not many BBC articles seem to have been assessed yet. - Boy1jhn 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the assessment project in the to do list - Boy1jhn 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Television and Radio Programmes

I just want something cleared up - I don't actually know what question I want answered ( =P ), but i know the answers:

• All programmes broadcast on the BBC belong in this project
• All programmes produced by the BBC belong in this project
• Notable programmes broadcast/produced by the BBC belong in this project
• No programmes broadcast on the BBC belong in this project; it is for articles about the BBC itself.

Which one would people say is most accurate? _TheIslander 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would probably go for the first, though it could be an idea to set up a specific task force as part of the project to deal with BBC Television Programmes - Boy1jhn 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am working with the first one when adding articles into the project.  Tiddly Tom  19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, well bearing in mind that I assessed most the articles today, I went for the first option, and as far as the importance goes, this is what I did:

Status	Template	How programmes (radio and TV) are assigned
Top	{{Top-Class}}	Only main BBC articles are assigned this status - it is not for programming.
High	{{High-Class}}	Only high-profile BBC productions get assigned this status, for example Doctor Who, or Eastenders.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	Particularly notable broadcasts on the BBC get this status.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This is the status that is assigned to all programmes that do not fit in the above categories.

I personally think it works quite well. Of course it has some wiggle room, and some editors may give an article one status whilst others would give it a different status, but my opinion is that it works in general. What do others think? If people approve, I'd suggest pasting this into the assessment unit, and making it a sort of guideline. _TheIslander 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is great, the only change I would make is to say 'This is for main BBC articles only.' instead of 'None assigned this status; it is for main BBC articles only.'. With the Mid importance would you include things like The Chris Moyles Show and Wake Up to Wogan as both these shows get several million listeners?  Tiddly Tom  22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it slightly, to take in your comments. Yup, I'd say the shows you cite would count as mid. To put it simply, very, very few go in 'High', the majority in 'Low', and everything else in 'mid'. _TheIslander 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these are the criteria we should work with, so I've added the importance guidelines specific to programmes in a subsection underneath the general ones on the main assessment page. Good work clearing the backlog by the way. - Boy1jhn 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Project Page Re-Vamp

I have decided to make alterations to the main project page, to update it slightly and make it a little more visually friendly to attract new users to the project. - Boy1jhn 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the re-vamp. I hope it's satisfactory, but feel free to make any further changes you consider necessary. - Boy1jhn 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more than satisfactory, it's very, very good. Nice job. Just a few things I want to tweak, so I've put the inuse back. Won't take long... _TheIslander 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done - just a small tweak here and there. _TheIslander 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me, Good Work!  Tiddly Tom  19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements - Boy1jhn 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I have created a page to specifically deal with maintenance of the portal. Feel free to add to it. It can be found here. - Boy1jhn 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC related topics

Just thought I'd let the members of WP:BBC know about this deletion, I don't know how y'all feel about the page, but it does seem useful enough that it might go into project space at the least. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was actually the one that nominated it - it seems obsolete to me, what with the BBC category, and this project. Regardless, do take a look at the AfD discussion, and state your opinion. _TheIslander 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let project members know that CBBC On Choice has also been nominated for deletion. You can express your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBBC On Choice - Boy1jhn 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The results of the two deletion discussions were to delete List of BBC related topics and to redirect CBBC On Choice. - Boy1jhn 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are BBC people allowed to join the project

I work for the BBC. Am I allowed to work on this project, provided I obey Wikipedia's rules and keep my work accurate?

12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Nick Reynolds (BBC) Nick Reynolds (BBC) 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course :) As long as you follow all the guidelines espacaly WP:NPOV. Welcome aboard.  Tiddly Tom  13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It could even be seen as useful; you'll be able to verify things, and may be able to point out more specific sources. I've seen the problems on the Criticism of the BBC page, so I'm aware of what's going on, but of course you may join. Welcome ;) _TheIslander 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you joining the project would be very helpful. I just google searched your name, and it came up with quite a bit of stuff, but none saying what your actual job was. If you dont mind me asking, what is it? ;)  Tiddly Tom  13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I usually work for the BBC's Editorial Policy unit but since November of 2006 I've been on attachment (which is a fancy BBC word for placement) at the BBC's Audio and Music Interactive department.

Thanks.

12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Nick Reynolds (BBC) Nick Reynolds (BBC) 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC people can even join and keep quiet about it - as I did! Methinks it's an advantage being on the inside - some of the Beeb's biggest critics are within - it's that sort of place. Zir 12:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you dont mind me asking, what do you do in the Beeb, Zir.  Tiddly Tom  12:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I work for Resources making telly progs - which means that in a few month's time I'll NOT work for the Beeb !

Zir 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me, Scott Adams creator of Dilbert once said "never work for anything with Resources in its title".

Zir 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Beeb staff mag, Ariel, has an article about Wikipedia this week which I've reproduced here (with their permission). Zir 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Zir it was interesting to read. Does anybody know how they found the email addresses? Can only Admin do it or what? Thanks  Tiddly Tom  17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not email addresses (thankfully), but network address of confuser connected to the internet - Beeb ones say: 132.185.XXX.XXX - f'rinstance.... Zir 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what I thought, thanks for clarifying. Tiddly-Tom 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC News

Well, having revealed my true colours, I've put the following on the Talk:BBC News page:

"Having gradually expanded, and I hope improved, the History → 1980's, I'm now trying to make some of the dates more definitive. However, in doing so feel that I've made the entry a bit long and was wondering about having a separate article, say History of BBC News linked from a (brief) History section within BBC News (which is now 44 kilobytes long, it keeps reminding me) in a similar manner to Main article: BBC News Online and all the other ones. Thinking now from the point of view of people consulting BBC News to get the info they want."

If anyones interested, could they take a look at the article here and leave comments here rather than here.

Thanks Zir 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject BBC Sitcoms

I've had this message from Mollsmolyneux, the founding member of WikiProject BBC Sitcoms, which has been inactive for a while now, saying he would be interested in making it a taskforce of our project instead to try and get more people involved. Do people agree that this is a good idea and should go ahead? - Boy1jhn 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

After a quick look around, I think all of these wiki projects could be merged into this project;

• • Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC Sitcoms,
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Blackadder,
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Dad's Army,
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fawlty_Towers,
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Only_Fools_and_Horses

If active enough, they could have their own sub page. I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who is fine by its self. Tiddly-Tom 08:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and merge WikiProject BBC Sitcoms. I agree that we should get the others to merge with us as well, but first we need permission from them, which we haven't got yet. - Boy1jhn 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The taskforce has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/BBC Sitcoms task force and I've altered the main BBC project banner so that articles can be marked as being part of the taskforce. Take a look and make any alterations you want. - Boy1jhn 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work setting up the task force :) Do you know how many pages currently have the BBC Sitcom box on? Is it worth adapting a bot to re do them or something (to put on the BBC one with adaption)? Do you think we should ask them to rate them on importance and content using the Wikiproject BBC criteria here? If I change this to include '|task force=' will this be ok, or will it break something :S? Do you mind if I go ahead and invite the other projects to merge (only the ones I mention above)? Tiddly-Tom 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's fine by me if you ask the others to merge. The BBC Sitcoms WikiProject hadn't tagged a huge number of articles, so I've already managed to track the ones with the box on down manually using What Links Here on the project boxes page and converted them. The main problem at the moment is that there are lots of articles on BBC Sitcoms that haven't been tagged yet. Most on this list haven't been tagged yet. Yes I think we should ask them to assess the articles. Since they're now part of this WikiProject it makes sense if they use our assessment tools. I don't think it would break anything if you tried to change it, but i'm not completely sure! - Boy1jhn 07:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have invited all the above wikiprojects to merge, with the exception of Faulty Towers which seems to be more dead then in active :P I have also changed the page I mentioned to include the new parameter. It doesnt seem to have broken anything. I will do more work on the project later (I have some ideas :p )Tiddly-Tom 10:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-Registration?

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to find out who is still active on this project by asking users to re-register. Basically, a message would be sent to all users on the active members list asking them to re-register on a special page (Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/Re-Registration for example) if they were still interested in participating in the project. After a certain time limit, a fortnight for example, any user who had not re-registered would be removed from the Active Members list. Opinions? - Boy1jhn 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the non-responding names dropped down into the "Inactive Members" section, or some other suitably named section - to keep track of them (you can only use innuendo in its title, if humorous, Matron...) Zir 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me :) Tiddly-Tom 08:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll send out the messages. The limit will be 15 days, anyone not replying after will be put into the Inactive Members section. - Boy1jhn 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As time is almost (?) up, & as I said above — when you redo the active list please would you just amend the original list and keep the same chronological order of when we all originally joined — dropping off those not responding (down into inactive or retired) rather than using the re-reg. list which has the founders name curiously second. It also means that lapsed members can be slotted back in the right order, should they wish to re-join at some future date — what say you ....Zir 11:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Founding of the BBC

The BBC article claims that the corporation was founded by a group of companies, among them General Electric and AT&T. Is this correct, and if so, is it the US company General Electric or the UK company The General Electric Company plc? Miremare 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Methinks that it's General Electric Company Ltd — the original British Broadcasting Company office was on the fifth floor of the G.E. building in London [1] (Wikipedia says Marconi building, but it might have been renamed when GEC acquired Marconi through taking over English Electric) — anyway Hugo Hirst founder of the British G.E. was on that first committee [2] — tho' there were slight links elsewhere to the American G.E. — all this is difficult to establish as most online refs. just quote Wikipedia back at us !

If you want to know more, you'll have to read a book — try the first volume [3] of Beeb history by Asa Briggs [4]. For a quick crash course on early hisory then look here [5] from 1922 onwards .... Zir 10:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to improve BBC by adding founders and a tag to direct here for more history. Zir 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Members

The 15 days has come and pass and now it is time to do something with the members list. I am happy to sort it out, can some people just give me their views of what I propose to do:

• Create page Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/Members.
• Have an active list, inactive and retired list.
• Display joined date, and confirmed active date.
• Send a message to all members that are becoming inactive to let them know.

Are you happy with this, or do you have any other ideas? Tiddly-Tom 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all that is particularly useful or of any advantage and just creates a need for maintenance and for the info to date (for example both Redvers and AxG are now both back from Wikibreaks and are not "Inactive" according to the current definition). I don't see what purpose or advantage a sub-page would provide either. Just move anyone who hasn't re-registered to and inactive list and leave it at that. I think it's great that you have the enthusiasm to do it, but I think some effort as a project needs go into improving articles, such as getting BBC One back to Good Article status or improving the 440 articles marked as stubs, as, after all, that is the whole point of the project. mattbr 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree — just drop all non-responding members names down into inactive along with the dates and leave it at that. Tell them that this has happened due to not replying, then the choice is theirs as to what they do (revert or retire)....Zir 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Still intend on doing this, just been focusing on getting vandal proof to work first. Should I use their signature, or this: Example (talk · contribs)? I just want to get it right before I spend lots of time doing it. Tiddly-Tom 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Members list sorted, will go and inform inactive members now. Tiddly-Tom 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done All members that have been moved to inactive informed. Tiddly-Tom 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what we do

Not sure that this slogan in the BBC Infobox Network is relevant any more — that campagn [6] launched 18 months ago, and promos have not been aired for a while now...Zir 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I defiantly haven't seen it in a while, although I do think it sounds cool, but I realize that is not the purpose of wikipedia. I think it should probably be removed, unless anybody objects. Tiddly-Tom 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC Vision Productions

From 18th Oct under Thomo's six year plan BBC Vision (or is it just BBC Vision Studios - I can't get my head round this) has changed its name to BBC Vision Productions [[7]] see under BBC Vision production. So far I've just amended Peter Salmon's entry but there are more BBC Vision refs [[8]] but I'm confused as to which should be changed at the mo'.....Zir 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Programming commissioning

I think (though I might be wrong) that I've found a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage of media organizations. I'm just sampling opinion at relevant WikiProjects to see if someone more informed has any ideas. The process of commissioning content for television and radio networks is an important one, with commissioning editors being notable media figures. The process affects the people who write and produce media content, as well as the commercial fortunes of the networks. Balances have to be made between artistic and commercial considerations, audience demographics (e.g. commissioning shows designed to attract younger or more affluent viewers), and in some circumstances, public service commitments. Should there be an article on this subject that explains details like how a show gets commissioned (who has to persuade whom? Are formats prepared to a brief specified by the network? What sort of test-screening or pilot schemes can be used to test a show's viability?), what the role of a commissioning editor is (I'm guessing they aren't in charge of scheduling a show... in multi-channel companies, can they even decide which channel it should be broadcast on? Is the tendency for different channels to have separate commissioning editors? Are commissioning editors' roles generally field-specific e.g. "Controller of Drama Commissioning", "Commissioning Editor for Factual Entertainment"? Presumably they have to work within the budget allocated to their area by their network, but do they have leeway to negotiate prices when trying to secure content or does that have to be authorized from higher up the company? Who becomes a commissioning editor anyway, and what is it the stepping stone to?), and what are the differences in the process between organizations with their own production facilities and those that rely on external independent producers - I presume the pitching process works differently? How do networks decide on when to re-commission a series? (In the middle of its run or at its end? Is it tied in to the advertising cycle that exists in some countries? In a first season of a show, are only the first few episodes commissioned in case it bombs, with an expectation that the rest of the season will be commissioned if they fare well?) Are there any particularly notable re-commissioning decisions? (I know that the re-commissioning of the original Star Trek for its final season, after an initial cancellation, only came after a major fan campaign - I'm sure such fan campaigns aren't unusual, but how is such a success rare?) As a general rule, how long after an original show is commissioned is that show actually ready to air? These are all questions I don't know the answers to, but I think Wikipedia should address them somewhere. Should there be an article at programming commissioning, commissioning editor or commissioning director that covers this sort of thing? So that replies gather in a central place, it's probably a good idea to post any thoughts at Talk:Commission where I wrote at first. I hope my query makes sense! TheGrappler 08:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jay Hunt (BBC)

I have started a scrappy little article on Jay Hunt, since she's just been named as the next controller of BBC One (and an article on her was overdue anyway). If anyone here can work their magic on it, that would be great! Thanks. -Hence Piano 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible subprojects (task force or work group)

There are currently 9 people listed as being interested on working on a Life on Mars work group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Life on Mars. Would the members of this project be willing to take on that group as a task force/work group of that project? Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Blackadder is currently inactive, and has been proposed for merging to this project. Would that idea be acceptable to the members of this project? If yes, let me know and I can try to adjust the project banner to accomodate them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. We already have the BBC Sitcoms task force and it seems sensible for BBC only topics such as these to be part of this project. If the scope of the LoM task force covers it, would it be more sensible to include Ashes to Ashes in the name? mattbr 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [9]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [10] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Banner

Hey Guys, The WikiProject BBC banner does not appear to handle Featured Lists, and classes them as unassessed, any ideas how to make it work with Featured Lists? For example here. Thank you. Tiddly-Tom 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes#Advanced project banners should have what you are looking for. Feel free to hit up my talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council if you need any help. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Vision

I've written a sentence, slightly longer than this one, to stop Vision being the only redlink in the Beeb menu box. Feel free to contribute to this obscure subject...Zir (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Adaptation of The Hobbit

I'm trying to find a good, reliable source, for the 1968 BBC Radio 4 adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkiens The Hobbit, preferably a review which could be paraphrased. Failing that, something about the master-tape wiping and subsequent recovery. I can't seem to find a reliable, independent source on the internet, perhaps an old copy of the Radio Times from the period would cover it? If someone could add a citation to The Hobbit (in the Adaptations sections) or The Hobbit (1968 radio series) or point me in the right direction, that would be great. --Davémon (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Time

For those people who edit BBC programmes such as World News Today and BBC World News America, please make the necessary changes starting Next Week as the Daylight Savings starts in the US next week until the last week of the month for the start of the UK's Daylight Savings.

Thank You.

122.3.25.26 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

I've just removed an addition to BBC Television Centre concerning Pacific Quay and notice that the culprit has started articles on Media Village Scotland & The Glasgow Studios - both similar to PQ. Could someone who knows about matters north of the border keep an eye on the output of Funguy06 & 77.97.40.249 Thanks...Zir (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BBCproject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 22 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC News (TV channel) now available free overseas.

DYK that BBC News (TV Channel) has been available worldwide since 10th April at Streamick.com under BBC News 24. I've put this information on the above articles' Talk Page Kathleen.wright5 02:59, 25 April 2008 Australia

This is not true as of now. What's available is the 1-minute news summary, long available at the BBC's website. Matt's talk 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Can someone make an article on The World Today radio programme and make a dab page on that title? -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

University Challenge userbox

UCThis user watches University Challenge This user took part in University Challenge for the University of Birmingham in 2007 And here's this user's starter for ten...

For anyone who's interested, I've created a University Challenge userbox – visit {{User:UBX/University Challenge}} for instructions on how to use it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Owl Service

Why is this series included in the project, since it was aired on ITV and made by Granada?--82.0.207.86 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review on Last of the Summer Wine

I'd be grateful if some editors would be willing to give me some feedback on Last of the Summer Wine. I still feel it is almost at FA but the editors who tipped the balance to oppose in the last FAC refused to elaborate on what they thought was wrong with the article beyond some vague and cursory comments. I've opened a peer review request at Wikipedia:Peer review/Last of the Summer Wine/archive3‎ if anyone is willing to review the article. Thanks and cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to BBC, ITV and related biography articles

An anonymous editor (various IPs starting 76.* and 75.*) has been making changes to a large number of broadcasting related articles over several days, for example: BBC News at Ten, BBC Nine O'Clock News, ITV Lunchtime News, Trevor McDonald, Alastair Stewart, and others. These appear to be lots of minor changes or addition of unsourced and poorly writen comments. These edits never have edit summaries and as their IP keeps changing it is difficult to discuss anything with them; no response has been made to a request on an article talk page.

It would be useful if some editors who are knowledgeable in these broadcasting areas could investigate. I've been reverting ones that appear to be vandalism, as have one or two other editors, but the anon IP seems insistent on making changes. If these edits are confirmed as vandalism, it would seem to be appropriate to semi-protect some of the articles in question. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 2698 articles are assigned to this project, of which 502, or 18.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for BBC

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to monitor Radio 4?

Dear all, forgive me if this has been suggested before, but I can see no record of it. It occurs to me that it would be a fantastic addition to Wikipedia if those of us who have Radio 4 on in the background could add the snippets that we hear and that add materially to the relevant articles. For example, as I type, there has just finished a half-hour programme on Arthur Mee, the improbably named auto-didact. I have added to an article already existing. Can we systematise this? Who can suggest where I should best post this idea? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio task force.

Would it be a good idea to create a task force to concentrate specifically on articles related to BBC Radio? There are a lot of articles related to BBC Radio that could be improved and I think a task force could help with this. Does anyone have any comments about creating a BBC Radio task force?

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'd appreciate it if any members of this project could spend a bit of time and participate in the review of Survivors (2008). Thanks, Deadly∀ssassin 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC Young Musician of the Year

User:Diaa abdelmoneim has nominated BBC Young Musician of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

Copied from WP:RM 199.125.109.19 (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) *History of BBC television idents → History of BBC One —(Discuss)— The content of the existing article should be merged into the relevant articles, with the potential exception of that for BBC One, which could spin off into this article. --Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No longer listed. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review of BBC

BBC has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Radio 4 Appeal

Was surprised to find there wasn't an article on this, so have created one and added to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes, where it wasn't even a red link! If anyone has historical works about BBC radio they could perhaps flesh out the mention of The Week's Good Cause (I've made redirects from that title, with and without "The"). PamD (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cally (Blake's 7)

Cally (Blake's 7) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC News (TV channel) - Good Article delist

The BBC News (TV channel) article has been delisted as part of the GA Sweeps currently ongoing. I have downgraded it to B-Class at the moment, but the article does need some work doing on it and another editor may re-review the article and keep or downgrade it further. --tgheretford (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The_Takeaway

Hello BBC folks;

It would be helpful, I think, if others could contribute to this discussion, and help to build a WP:CONSENSUS;

Talk:The_Takeaway#Campbellgirl

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Torchwood Institute GAR

I have nominated Torchwood Institute for a community review of its GA status, which can be found here. Please comment there for ways of improving the article and helping it to maintain its GA status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Write Stuff

Do any members of this group feel informed enough to start a new article on a comedy that gets broadcast on Radio 4 called "The Write Stuff"? This is a programme that is based on literature, often features a writer and gets broadcast during Radio 4's normal comedy slot {6: 30 p.m.). I shall be grateful if any one could help. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Information is on the Radio 4 website about this programme. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Well, as no one else seemed to take up this offer, I have started an article on this radio series myself. Can you please have a look at it? You may wish to rate it (you will probably consider it stub class at present, but at least it is a start). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have reference to a detailed archive of radio play cast lists?

Hi, I've recently created Troy (BBC radio drama) and had it up as a DYK today. One obvious area for improvement is the detail of the cast list. I've put together the info I can find via Google but have only been able to find some list of performers (withotu roles) plus some specific mentions in reviews of individuals performing odd roles. So I know who play Achilles, Priam and Andromache but not Agamemnon, Menelaus and Odysseus. The programme was first broadcast as the main radio 3 Sunday drama three weeks in a row in 1998 and I'm sure that the RT used to give full cast lists for this but I am a bit vague on when they stopped. Anyone able to source this? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (will cross post to WP:UK Radio)

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

I have nominated BBC Sports Personality of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ann and Harold

Hi, I came across Ann and Harold at new pages and I think it would be better served if someone with paper sources, as I hope someone out there has, could expand the article in a more organized manner than (me) going about sourcing the article from online sources; using snippets picked up from Google wouldn't the best way to go about things and this article is a keeper. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BBC television drama

I have nominated BBC television drama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I have nominated Douglas Adams for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Images up for deletion from List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh

Fresh sets of eyes needed. I'd be grateful if editors could look at the images on List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh in the light of the image guidelines at WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles. The four images selected to represent recurring (as opposed to regular) characters have been nominated for deletion in this discussion at WP:FfD and the three immediately following. Jheald (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also look at the discussion of another character, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_30#File:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpg. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of QI

QI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlie and Lola (Tv Show) & Charlie and Lola

The main Charlie and Lola contains exact same information as the tv show page. Also it gives dierct links to buy DVD's (Is this a form of advertising?) and shouldn't (Tv Show) be changed to (TV series) thanks. Tsange ^►talk 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone tried to fork out the TV series stuff, but not successfully - for instance the new article needs a proper intro. And yes, the "buy the DVD" links must go, and the article should really move to Charlie and Lola (TV series). I'll go and do that now. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

good job! Tsange ^►talk 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS' FAR

I have nominated TARDIS for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

AFD for Amy Pond

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

AFDs for articles on BBC ident series

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_28#BBC One 'Balloon' idents and following.

See also Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:BBC-one1991.jpg, and WP:NFC#History of BBC television idents, also Talk:History of BBC television idents#Images and Talk:History of BBC television idents#Merger. Jheald (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now closed the AFDs for these articles and listed the articles atWikipedia:Proposed_mergers#Current_requests, to be merged into History of BBC television idents. It is my opinion that the content of these articles could be brought down to the most important facts without affecting the quality of those facts. Listing the details for every ident is already done quite efficiently by websites such as [The TV Room. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Amy Pond

Please see: Talk:Amy_Pond#RfC:_Is_Photo_in_Casting_and_initial_filming_section_relevant. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol

FYI Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_28#Category:TV_programmes_and_films_shot_in_Bristol. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Image use in infobox

Please see Talk:Eleventh_Doctor#RfC:_Image_use_in_infobox. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

The article currently has a lot of images but not very much text in comparison, patricularly with the sections after BBC Two. My proposal has been to remove some of the images from each section and add much more text. Following several nominations for deletion and reverts, I would like us all to be able to come to a decision on what to do here. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Review for Dalek

I have nominated Dalek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reith Lecturer category?

I notice that there isnt a category for Reith Lecturers. Anyone know if this has been discussed before?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Desert Island Discs episodes

I've been updating these. So far, only this one has been completed with all known episodes. I was wondering if some kind person could check them or add something? Cheers.
PILOT1984 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming of Age

The coming of age article does not seem to be listed on wik project bbc i have added pictures to the actor wiki page so far Anabel Barnston Tony Bignell Joe Tracini If anyone has any free images that they own please contact me i still need Hannah Job Ceri Phillips Ellen Thomas

Sfxprefects (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC News Good Article review

Hello all. BBC News is currently being reviewed for GA status but has been identified as having some work needed. If you get a chance and you're interested, please have a look at Talk:BBC News/GA2 and see what you can do. Thanks! Cloudbound (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class BBC articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I have nominated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sadads (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive1

I've nominated Dustbin Baby (film), which falls under the remit of this project, for FA status. Comments and thoughts would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America

There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).

• AFD is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BBC articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the BBC articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Morgana

I've proposed that Morgana (Merlin) be redirected to List of Merlin characters#Morgana. Discussion's here. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio 4 patrol

Yesterday at the British Library Editathon (part of the tenth-anniversary celebrations), I had a conversation with User:BrainyBabe. The general thrust was that we ought to have a Radio 4 patrol. Basically, this could be as simple as having a page on the wiki where listeners to BBC Radio 4 co-ordinate what they are listening to, to ensure that interesting things that get said on the radio make their way into Wikipedia or a sister project. Just as Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol check Wikipedia to make sure new stuff meets quality standards, Radio 4 patrollers would make a conscious effort to patrol what is said on Radio 4 and update Wikipedia accordingly. Obviously, whether a Radio 4 broadcast counts as a WP:RS may be up for dispute, but I think rather the point would be to start the process of adding interesting new things to Wikipedia.

There's a crossover here with WP:GLAM. Although the BBC is not a gallery, library, archive or museum, it is a cultural institution in a similar position. Showing them that there is a group of active people who maintain the wiki and reuse information they have sourced to make Wikipedia better is a clear public interest benefit that we might be able to use to convince the BBC to support Wikimedia projects.

And there's obviously potential to do this for other broadcasters: CBC, PBS, NPR, community radio stations, Internet radio, podcasts.

Opinions? —Tom Morris 11:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this up, Tom. I've had this idea for some time, but not known where best to push it forward. Radio 4 is the first "serious speech" source that comes to mind, but, as we discussed, there are many others: I'd add World Service, Voice of America, and there must be an Indian equivalent. I've long thought that every documentary or factual programme that goes by without someone catching a bit of it for Wikipedia is a lost opportunity. How it becomes a checkable source is another question, of course. (Many Radio 4 programmes are only available for 7 days, or longer but still a limited time.)

IANAP (I am not a programmer.) I kind of vaguely imagined logging on and pressing a button to indicate that I have (e.g.) Radio 4 on in the background, and am in a position to add information to Wikipedia, stimulated by what I hear. (Directly or indirectly: it has happened that a programme about an off-ball topic such as the bizarre conspiracy theorist Noel Pemberton Billing sends me off to discover more about First World War homophobia. Isn't WP grand.)

Perhaps the magic future software could let us all see who is thus on the case: red for an editor signed up to the project and currently logged on but not listening, orange for listening but not editing on that subject, green for editing live from the radio input. (And, if there are not too many to be tiresome, a list of members of the patrol who are not logged in to WP: greyed out, presumably.) I could imagine a row of traffic lights, one for logged on members of the patrolling project, and, should other channels wish to get involved, another row, featuring one set of traffic lights for each source. So the English-language World Service would appear either with red (no member of the project is listening), orange (a named person is listening, and is finding nothing suitable to add to WP), or green (one or more named editors are on the case, catching what is currently on air, and adding data with appropriate references to named articles).

Suggestions? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Could perhaps be done as an IRC bot. I was going to suggest an IM bot, but Wikipedia seems to run on IRC. Basically, you log into IRC and say "I'm listening to Radio 4 right now" (perhaps a general radio channel and then people could use a command like "wp-radio-bot: Radio 4, start" or something like that to signal to the radio bot that something is going on). Or, alternatively, we could have a tool a bit like the Check Wikipedia site, only with it as a radio programme. You could go on there and say "I've listened to it", kinda like patrolled changes on Special:NewPages. —Tom Morris 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Like this, maybe? User:Tom Morris/Radio 4 Patrol Sample —Tom Morris 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be really easy to use. I doubt that most WP editors use IRC; many don't know what it is. I looked at the two pages suggested (Check WP and Newpages), which I hadn't heard of before. I'm sure they are useful to the people involved, but I can't immediately see how they'd transfer to my idea. The newly created Patrol Sample is good, though, thanks Tom. I tried it this morning, and ran up against one limitation: it needs more options than "Done" or "not suitable for WP". Does "Done" mean "squeezed to the pips"? Or more like "something has been added"?

Magazine programmes could be tricky. I was listening to Woman's Hour and, as frequently happens, it discussed a woman who made a significant contribution to British life and history, but who has no WP article, no ODNB entry, and apparently no full biography. This is exactly what under-represented and under-documented groups are up against, in trying to flesh out WP and address its inherent biases. I requested a (WP) biography. Does that, in the context of this discussion, mean that that edition of Woman's Hour is "done"?

Anyway, the patrol page is a start, and thank you for getting it together. I'd be interested to hear other voices too. Does this idea fill a need? Are others likely to contribute, should it become a project in its own right? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Transcription Service

Which article covers the BBC Transcription Service? The closest fit I've found so far is BBC Studios and Post Production, and I've left a note on its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Condolences, and welcome

On Wednesday, the BBC World Service announced that 650 jobs, a third of the workforce, will be cut, most of them this year. Five languages, representing 30m current listeners around the globe, will no longer be served. I happen to think the cut backs will be a loss, and will not serve Britain's interests abroad; it is the softest of diplomacy. However, the point of this posting is to welcome any BBC people who might soon have more time on their hands than they would wish. If you care to contribute your expertise to Wikipedia, we would be glad to have you! If you are reading this where I am first posting it, presumably you already have some familiarity with editing Wikipedia, and probably have an account. Please consider pointing your colleagues towards us, and assuring them of our welcome.

Where else could this welcome be posted? It is a time of traumatic transition for the Beeb. At the top of this page for a few weeks? In a WP publication-of-record? As a press release? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Our Planet

The article Our Planet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) mentions of the subject. Is not mentioned at CBeebies, did find several hits online for T.V. guide type listings, but nothing showing WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthsearch

While listening to a repeat of the above programme on R4E last night, I looked at our page on it and that on Follett's official website and noticed a resemblance. I've shoved up a Copyvio template for now. Anyone want to sort things?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Desert Island Discs castaways - nominated for deletion

The category Desert Island Discs castaways has been nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Welsh Rarebit (radio programme)

I droppped this on the WP:WALES talk page and I am dropping a copy here on the off-chance someone might have sources for the Welsh Rarebit (radio programme) article. I came across it at Special:Newpages and while I had heard of it, I haven;t been able to find more than few sources for the article (particularly for dates), which the article could do with. I am fairly confident that it did start in 1938 on the Welsh Regional Programme and a figure of 12 million listeners given in a source is a reasonable figure. (Actually that would make it one of the most popular Welsh made BBC programmes ever; 12 million is about 1600-1800 milliWhos by my calculation). One other thing that springs tto mind is that the producer from 1941, Mai Davies, along with one of the performers, wrote We`ll Keep a Welcome (in the Hillside) which was played at the end of the programme (and of course became a bit of a standard); anyway, if anyone has any sources that couldn't be found online, the article needs them. FlowerpotmaN·(t)

BBC Computer 30th anniversary

I don't suppose anyone knows whether bbcmicro.com is linked to the BBC or not. Have I missed things in the press about this? Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a request for BBC Computer Literacy Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (noredirect). It would be great if those with access to archives could make a start on this. -- Trevj (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Salmon

I am not involved in this project but could someone look at the article on Ricky Salmon and particularly have a look the the first item on the discussion page. It has implications for other BBC related articles. You will also find my response there. SMeeds (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

In light of the concerns over the use of fair use images in History of BBC television idents, I have nominated the article for deletion here. Cloudbound (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Top Gear

I've recently been editing the Criticism of Top Gear article. I think I could use some more eyes on that page though, so since it seems to fall under your WikiProject I thought I'd pass it along. --cc 14:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the criticism from Episode 6, Series 17 to the page. Feel free to look over it and make corrections as I am newer to editing Wikipedia. Thanks! --mgwrolstad 15:09, 1 November 2011

BBC Portal template

Does anybody have any idea why the { {portal|BBC} } template (formatting not the same) has become tiny in all it's uses? Apart from anything else it far too small. Rafmarham (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been a recent merge of {{portal}} and {{portal box}}; it's probably a side-effect. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22#Template:Portal box and the actual merger. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in here. How many should there be? I just looked here and there appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7000 links. --Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Rafmarham doesn't mean that the number of transclusions has dropped - the problem is that the portal box has taken on significantly smaller dimensions. It used to be slightly smaller than {{commonscat}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I misunderstood. --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The old code for {{portal}} would use {{portal box}} if multiple portal names were specified. Otherwise, it would use a different code. Hence, you would get different formatting if you asked for multiple portals in the same box instead of a single portal name. The old code would use 'x28px' for the image size if there is a single image and '32x28px' for the image size if there are multiple images. So, since the BBC logo is wide, it is being 'width limited' to 32px. If it's important we can tweak the code for {{portal}} to allow for a wider image when there is only one image. I put the old 'single portal' code in the sandbox for portal. Thanks for the note! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have posted some notes at Template_talk:Portal#Post_merger_notes. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding there. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)