Talk:BBC Radio 4 Extra

message: Interesting.  Reverting the page merely to eliminate passive voice is one thing, but not correcting the simple spelling mistakes and redundant (and repeated) words within the article is a strange decision. Maybe these errors are less noticeable than the passive voice. Or perhaps I have put someone's nose out of joint by correcting their errors?  Still, you live and learn.  It's certainly put me off from bothering to edit anymore pages. --Olaf Legend 11:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  passive voice revert 

message: The BBC still call the station BBC7 on their website so why is the page redirected to Radio 7?  I can't find any reference to "Radio 7" on the BBC website except this below from their FAQ  --jmb 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to say that they are changing their name from "BBC7" to "BBC Radio 7", they just seem to be standardising logos and the logo has "Radio" incorporated into it in the same place as the other radio networks.  I think we should request that the page name is reverted to its original name until such time as the BBC actually change the name, I don't think that is possible though as it has to be done by an administrator.  It has to be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves.   --jmb 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio 7?

message: There is no evidence that the BBC have any plans to rename BBC7 as BBC Radio 7.  They have incorporated "Radio" into a logo to standardise the logos across the range of BBC radio stations.  Can this page be put back to the correct name of this radio station i.e. BBC7  --jmb 12:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes probably better with the space.  --jmb 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has put the name back to BBC Radio 7, I will put in a request for it to be put back to the correct name BBC7 as used by the BBC everywhere apart from a logo.  --jmb 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put a request in for the name to be reverted back to the correct name and steps taken to prevent further vandalism.  --jmb 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: All done. --06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename BBC7 Discussion

message: Is "People who have took part in BBC comedy competitions have went on to have their own series" a joke?  Deipnosophista (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. John-Luke Roberts and Miriam Elia both took part in BBC comedy competitions and went on to have their own shows on BBC 7. ISD (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the point was the grammar...Deipnosophista (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  idiom 

message: I've updated the page as the station has changed it's name (most obviosuly see announcements on the station, but also it's website and the Radio Times) to BBC Radio 7, but moving the page won't work. Someone should fix it, but I can't be arsed (and I'm not sure what part of that bureaucracy I should be poking). FredOrAlive (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have spotted the problem. BBC Radio 7 already exists as a redirect. Therefore, I would suggest copying the information in this article to that one, and then update the links. ISD (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this happened - but for anyone reading this in the future, then copying the information is a BAD idea. In this sort of case you should go to WP:RM per WP:MOR. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name update Oct 08 

message: IP address 78.149.225.133 has repeatedly deleted any reference to children's programmes listening figures on Radio 7. The source cited states ""We will have to see how that goes. I am not claiming that it is necessarily going to work because in some ways Radio 7 faces similar problems to Radio 4," added Damazer citing figures which show Radio 7 has a weekly reach of children aged between four and 14 of just 25,000.""
In the absence of a better authority than the station's controller, I think these figures are both notable and trustworthy Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the edits today happens to have come from an IP address which is registered to the BBC. I'm starting to whiff a potential conflict of interest. It's worth keeping an eye on it for now and taking further action if that sentence plus source is removed without reason either in the edit summary or this talk page. --tgheretford (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listening figures for children's programmes 

message: When this station becomes Radio 4 Extra next month, are we going to simply move this article, or would it be better to keep the Radio 7 article as a historic page (in a similar fashion to the separate BBC Radio 5 and BBC Radio 5 Live articles? After all, at the moment it's not clear whether R4X will have a completely different style/schedule/content, or whether it's essentially going to be BBC7 under a new name. I think it would be best to wait and see, but I personally would quite like to keep an article about BBC Radio 7 as a historic mention as we have with BBC Home Service (which was essentially rebranded as Radio 4). I would even favour perhaps reverting it to its original launch name of BBC7. Bob talk 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's essentially going to be BBC7 under a new name. In the Radio 7 newsletter the Head of Programmes says "We will be bidding farewell to Radio 7 on Friday 1st April ( no, I'm not fooling!) and donning our Radio 4 Extra hats on Saturday 2nd April to launch our re-branded and slightly re-vamped network." That seems to make it clear it's just a change of name and a slight rescheduling. Judging from TV channel rebrands such as Pick TV the usual thing would be to move the article. As a secondary point, could anyone argue that the current article is at a standard that would make it worth preserving? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you may have a point, it's not in the best shape at the moment. I suppose it would be best to wait and see at the time, although I wonder if there is scope to turn one of the redirects into a little historical article like the Radio 5 article? It was only launched in 2002 (I think I have a minidisc with the launch night on somewhere), so in theory there will be quite a large number of press sources available online, and then it would allow the moved article to maintain the contributor history, etc. Bob talk 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

text: There's already a redirect from 4extra to this page, perhaps this article could include more information from the website Mittfh has found? As the BBC itself is suggesting it's only a "slightly re-vamped network" (see above) I wouldn't favour creating a new article, especially as the precedent with rebranded TV channels seems to be renaming. If a new article is created it will necessarily be a stub unless it repeats much of the information already here. Better to have a single article that explains everything than split it into two articles, both of which would be not much more than inter-dependent stubs. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alistair that for the time being it's perhaps best to keep them together - if it turns out later that R4X is very different in tone and content, then the former BBC7 may justify its own article. For example, some of the strands like "The Seventh Dimention" will presumably have to change name with it. I may have a look over this week perhaps and start writing the stuff about R7 in the past tense, and a little information about what R4X will have. Bob talk 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

text: You did great work updating, Bob (and reacting calmly to a clumsy intrusion). I agree about the awkwardness and it's a shame Radio 7 detail's bound to get lost eventally. Of course, there's a Radio 7 article preserved in the history of this one, but not a very good article. To justify splitting it off I think it would need working on. Radio 5's closure and Five Live's launch definitely involved totally different services. I'm not sure. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio 4 Extra rebranding 

message: Now that the big R4X rebrand has taken place, although at the moment there's not really a lot of scope for a split article, I wonder whether there is potential for a spin-off historical article like BBC Radio 5. At the moment, it's quite awkward rewriting the present material into a "before-after" thing, for example the list of original programmes is all Radio 7 at the moment, but will there want to be a separate list for things like Ambridge Extra? (ultimately I'm not that bothered about the list's inclusion anyway, as it's uncited, but that's one example). Any thoughts? Bob talk 23:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You did great work updating, Bob (and reacting calmly to a clumsy intrusion). I agree about the awkwardness and it's a shame Radio 7 detail's bound to get lost eventally. Of course, there's a Radio 7 article preserved in the history of this one, but not a very good article. To justify splitting it off I think it would need working on. Radio 5's closure and Five Live's launch definitely involved totally different services. I'm not sure. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Post re-branding

message: BBC Radio 7 to BBC Radio 4 Extra 77.98.190.46 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly unclear what the question is? Do you mean that it's in capital letters in the latest logo? I think that's usually just a stylistic thing rather than how it's styled in the article. Bob talk 18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last BBC Radio 7 was BBC Radio 4 EXTRA