Talk:Children in Need

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

Contents 1 2007 event 2 Pudsey History 3 2006 updates 4 2007 Updates 5 Minor Change 6 Controversy 7 November 2007 8 Source

[edit] 2007 event

I entered an event under 2007 and it was removed. It was not a link to a personal page but a link to a giving page. This may not have been _the_ BBC giving page but it is a site sanctioned by them for giving to the 2007 appeal. The event was indicative of the type of events happening all around the country to raise money for this appeal. As such I have countermanded the reversion by User:Shanes. It would have been polite to at least add a talk entry to discuss whether such events were allowed. Examples of a class of event are used in many places ... indeed CiN itself is just an example of the class of telethon events. Pbhj 11:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was actually me who reverted the original edit. I've removed it again for two reasons: 1) I don't believe that it is appropriate content. There are so many hundreds or thousands of events happening all over the country that you can't include such a specific link to one individual event. 2) The link doesn't even work at the moment; there's just an error message (I admit that the error may be temporary and I'm sure the page is genuine, but it can't currently be verified.) If I'm in the minority about the appropriateness of the entry, then fine. --Whoosher 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"you can't include such a specific link to one individual event" ... don't be silly. Transient errors are part and parcel of the internet. I presume you checked out the parent page [justgiving.com] and realised that this company is paid by CiN (along with other charities) to host a service for people making donations to them. Or maybe you checked out justgiving?

Examples of a class are a valid type of entry which illuminates this particular article. Not all the celebrity events were listed so I guess you'll be deleting that bit too? So I disagree with you still but I'm not into edit wars, so I'm sure you feel smug and self-important now. 91.108.182.143 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia exists not to promote Children in Need, despite it being a worthy cause. The examples quoted were irrelevant and of no value to the article Paul210 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As then is much of the article. 91.108.133.28 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please could you elaborate on what parts of the article you believe irrelevant to the subject of Children In Need? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They're gonna smash last years total... Pedgeth (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something missing here... I can't find any mention of Celebrity Scissorhands in the 2007 section! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They havent mentioned it during the actual broadcast. Strange that... Pedgeth (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Very! I've added anyway as a seperate section which links to the main article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about "The Songbirds"? Pedgeth (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia doesn't. But I did find them elsewhere on t'internet. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pudsey History

Should there be a bit more about Pudsey Bear on this page like history and origins. After all this site does redirect from Pudsey Bear. If not should the sites be unconnected? --Jonwood1 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, its how i found the page Pedgeth (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 updates

Well done everyone, especially Peteb16 for keeping the 2006 event up to date :) Pedgeth 2:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Updates

Nice to see Peteb16 back :) -- Pedgeth (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to see you again too. Stone me, is it really a year since we last did this? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Phew! a break during the news and a decent line up for QI -- Pedgeth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, back to it, see you at 2 ish... -- Pedgeth (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a smashing job. Nice to see we caught the totals from the start this year. Sorry about the earlier mistake with the presenters - I missed the beginning. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

no probs dude, youre doing a great job keeping me right :) Pedgeth (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the upcomg repeats of the dragons den and doctor who segments?Pedgeth (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a note added to both to say they were shown twice? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Done Guys, I think we got everything. See you next year Pedgeth (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

--Whoosher (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)== Splitting the pages? == Should, after tonight's event, consideration given to separating the pages in to their respective years. That way the CIN master page just contains the premise of the show, with links to each year. Only the current year being filled in, then moved after the event? PS Great page to who is doing it.

That sounds like a good idea to me. ^anemone|_projectors 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The individual events are starting to steal focus from the primary subject of the article. Also, this is already being done for Comic Relief for the same reason. It would be great if the same format was followed. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until tomorrow though hey, i's hard enough keeping it on one page... Pedgeth (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my voice here: once the dust has settled on the 2007 event, there should definitely be a split. That would also allow, for example, the 2006 event to be covered in more detail than just the mostly bare lists we have now - though that would need proper inline referencing. 86.132.138.84 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the articles were split, the current lists we have now would need to be expanded greatly with citations, (preferably) pictures, proper prose text, etc. The current lists are not worthy articles on their own. mattbuck (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with splitting off segments as failure to do so would result in the page size exceeding its quota at a later stage thereby requiring a trim down anyway. -TonyW (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be a large concensus for splitting the articles... so I have. I hope this is okay. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. Well done Peteb!--Whoosher (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Change

The line (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_Need&diff=171994422&oldid=171993766) was quite insignificant

[edit] Controversy

Is this section really relivant? Larklight (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is notable?Larklight (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, it's more relevant to Terry Wogan himself rather than the charity or show. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Larklight (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is relevant and properly referenced and is now properly reinstated.This story made the national press and provoked much discussion. Paul210 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering how important their work is, and how large they are, the section takes up a disproportionately large amount for what is one man's fee, that no longer tkaes place. Larklight (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The section only takes up five lines of the article.That could hardly be described as excessive space.Paul210 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Five lines is more than all of it's history, or all 0f 2005, 2006 and 2007 on my browser. It is excessive given the length of the article, and should be trimmed at the very least.Larklight (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

I propose all the performance details should now be removed from the 2007 segment. The show has been and gone. The amount raised is recorded. The rest is clutter in what should be a concise article Paul210 (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such information isn't concise to this particular article which I believe is why a split has been proposed. If this information was in an article about the event itself then this information would be a useful reference and therefore shouldn't be removed at this stage. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article now looks rather awkward and cumbersome with all the unecessary 2007 show info taking up a disproportionate amount of space. If this info has to remain,can it not be condensed down to several lines? The same goes for the 2006 info still hanging around. Paul210 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a reasonable concensus for a split, so we should probably do that instead. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

I deleted a dead link Larklight (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)