Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject BBC logo WikiProject BBC Navigation
Main page | WikiProject talk | Assessment | Templates | Requests
BBC Portal (Maintenance) | Sitcoms task force
Archive
Archives
Archive One:October 06 - June 07

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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;
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Y Done - Members list sorted, will go and inform inactive members now. Tiddly-Tom 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done All members that have been moved to inactive informed. Tiddly-Tom 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] University Challenge userbox

UC This user watches University Challenge
Jeremy Paxman: "And here's your starter for ten..." This user took part in University Challenge for the University of Birmingham in 2007
Leonardo da Vinci's rhombicuboctahedron 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)