Talk:BBC Radio London

Untitled

The reference to Kate Allen refers to the wrong person - she's not the Australian triathlete!

I don't know about Kate Allen, but I did my best with the Lead section. --Soulparadox 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hu, Hum Kate Allen Wetter88 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Schedule - Unencyclopedic

According to section 1.7.3. of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a radio guide. Is there any way that the schedule could be made encyclopedic by changing it into a Presenters and Programmes section? --tgheretford (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that much of this stuff should be reframed or culled. --DanielRigal 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. As nobody had anything to say in its defence, I have rewritten it extensively. The new stuff probably needs tidying up a bit and the news and sports sections need expanding.--DanielRigal 18:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GLR - A waste of time and money

Wanted to get people's opinion on whether having a subsection 'GLR - a waste of time and money?' is NPOV? I know GLR was controversial but the amount of money spent on creating London Live as well as subsequent rebrandings could also merit a heading.

I don't think the title, with its question mark, is intended as a POV statement but as a reflection of the terms of the debate around the destruction of GLR. It would be better if the phrase "waste of time and money" was in quotes. That said, I think it would be even better to redo the GLR section in three sections covering the start, life and controversial end of the station. --DanielRigal 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I created the article and in retrospect do agree that it could have been a NPOV issue. The heading A waste of time and money wasn't a personal opinion on GLR, au contraire, it was an excellent station and much missed. Any improvements and additions to the article are more than welcome [[[User:Neasden Villa|Neasden Villa]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)]

I've often wondered why GLR doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry. Never mind the shenanigans surrounding its demise; as a historical entity, it is as interesting and significant as, say, the TV series Bronco. Moreso, in that its format, presenters, music policy have variously been adopted by many other radio stations.--Mickeydoodah (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)ed GLR also featured Asian music programmes where Kaleem Sheikh presented the A to Z of Indian Film and Classical music.

BBC local radio

This article gives the impression that BBC Radio London was the first BBC local radio station - in fact it was BBC Radio Leicester, launched nearly three years earlier. 217.34.39.123 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sorted that (I hope). It was part of the second wave launched after the experiment that started in Leicester was judged a success. Delverie (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

infobox picture

The infobox picture is of the BBC London regional news programme. This page is for the radio station, so an image similar to the BBC Radio Humberside and BBC Radio Merseyside infobox pics is more appropriate. The BBC website might be a good place to look. Digifiend (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Patronise?

Errr, why is there all this text about being Patronised?

Location

Are BBC London 94.9 studios still on Marylebone High Street? Grim²³★ 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they moved to Broadcasting House some time ago. Presenters still refer to Marylebone High Street as 'the old place'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeydoodah (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC LDN

I just thought I'd mention that the article implies BBC LDN was a name (and is actually slightly contradictory as it refers to BBC LDN as a name and also BBC London as a name). BBC LDN as a name is actually a common misconception - the station (nor the website nor the news programme) were never actually called BBC LDN. It was always called BBC London 94.9 and the LDN was merely a brand (the TV was BBC London News and online was bbc.co.uk/london). This was detailed several times in the BBC staff newspaper Ariel - although confusion is not entirely surprisingly because they never used the proper names visually just the LDN "logo".

I'm not going to make any edits because I work for the BBC (but not in BBC London) and as such it would be a conflict of interest! But I thought I'd mention it.

Bods (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea but I am not prepared to make that sort of whole-article scan for BBC LDN and change it to BBC London as it would take so long to do so Wetter88 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT IN PROGRESS

Major edit in progress. Will take a few days to complete (largly re-writting). If possible, please do not edit the main article until this is finished. I will report back here when done (few days). Thanks for your patience, sorry if this is an inconvenience. Jwikiediting (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Doing...: Will finish the updates in the next few days! Jwikiediting (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Finished copy editing. Also removed the copy edit tag. I mainly edited the bad formatting that was in place and put it to be similar to guidlines if wikipedia. Have any questions please say. (To get my attention ask questions on my user talk page or simply post a note on my talk page to get me to look here!) Jwikiediting (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On-Air

So, you seem to think that people with no Wiki page don't deserve to be included on a radio station's Wiki article. This is pathetic. Are you going to go through every radio station across the world and remove names with no link because YOU don't think they are notable? What about the other people listed on BBC London 94.9 Wikipedia page? It appears you have a real dislike to the BBC and are doing all you can to ruin it. 132.185.160.122 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please either grow up or clear off. This is not an attack on the BBC. This is defending Wikipedia from crufty list entries. The same rules apply to everybody and everything so nobody is being picked on here. You, my IP hopping friend, on the other hand, have caused at least two pages to have to be semi-protected which inconveniences all other IP editors who do not have registered accounts and impedes the improvement of BBC related articles just because you are incapable of dropping the stick when you have been shown that you are in the wrong and adjusting your approach within the rules. If you are capable of contributing constructively then please feel free to do so but you need to stop disrupting Wikipedia.

If you remain in any doubt about the policy, which has been pointed out to you before, please read/reread WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You grow up and stop acting like a Mr (or Mrs) know it all. 82.132.219.233 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring policies and getting upset at the people trying to enforce them is the only childish thing here. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:BBC Radio London/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Assessment, August 12 2007== I think this article could have been 'B' class, but it has a decided lack of sources. TheIslander 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit needed again.

The last copyedit was ten years ago, so any encyclopedic quality it may have had after this attempt seems to have been eroded. The article is littered with editorialising, 'words not to use', unsourced text, and a style comparable to a holiday timeshare promo presentation. I have referred the article to the Guild of Copyeditors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#BBC_Radio_London), but obviously anyone could have a go at improvement. Acabashi (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Acabashi, I don't think this article is suitable for a full copy-edit; please see my comments at REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Original research

As mentioned a year ago by Acabashi, I agree this article needs work. Some sections are still largely unreferenced and appear to me to be original research, so have added the OR tag. 46.69.29.80 (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)