Talk:BBC Radio 3

message: I'm not quite clear what is felt to be in need of citation here.  The fact that a conductor (probably Beecham) used the phrase - not necessarily directly in relation to Radio 3, but just on the pratice of playing extracts in general, or that radio 3 tends not to play extracts, which is pretty evident from the online schedules.  David Underdown 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite clear, or, more properly, it's quite clear that the preceding comment needs a semi-colon (not a full stop, or period) after the words "citation here". --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation added Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeding chunks 

message: I've twice reverted chagnes to a "new" logo.  So far as I can see the Radio 3 website and all current promotinal stuff (and I see quite a lot of Proms programmes at the moment) is still using the "old" logo.  I don't see any justification for changing this article until the "new" logo is in widespread use, and I've seen no evidence of it actually being used anywhere yet.  David Underdown 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source for when the use of thye present logo began? And for the fact that it looks like an F-clef? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: I added a original research tag to the claims that BBC Radio 3's ongoing rebranding has not been a success. Unless a source can show that because of the rebranding that the station has lost listeners, then it needs to be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it RAJAR figures on all measures are now at or near to all-time lows, and the general trend had been downward since Roger Wright's installation as Controller (the quarter which covers The Proms each year tends to buck that trend, but I think that even then 2007 figures for that quarter were lower than the same quarter in 2006).  There certainly is pres coverage out there, and analysis at http://www.for3.org (their discussion forum contains a number of links to the press coverage), but since I'm a supporter of that group and listed as such on the website, I've tended to avoided editing that aspect of this article as I clearly have a conflict of interest.  David Underdown (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I likewise declare an interest as a supporter of FoR3. This is a contentious issue and I'd prefer not to contribute to the section. I'll dig out some references to support the point that's being made but may leave it to someone else to edit the entry.  Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Studying the whole article, I see there's a great deal which is out of date (e.g. Online Developments says re the Beethoven downloads that these 'may lead to further performances being distributed in this manner'. On the contrary, apparently as a result of pressure from the recording industry, the BBC Trust has specifically excluded classical music from any further downloads. I'm diffident about contributing here, having registered a conflict of interest, but no one else seems to be doing so, so perhaps I will - after all, the Beethoven Experience was over 3 years ago and this statement still remains. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I've started expanding this section which I'll have to do piecemeal (or small bite by small bite).  The period 1967-1970, and immediately after, needs looking at in more detail, particularly with reference to 'Broadcasting in the Seventies'/generic broadcasting, concerns about, effects of &c. There are several sources to track down on this so it'll take time. I think a bit of the existing section will probably have to go. Hope that's all right? Any comments/help while it's in progress will be welcomed as I'm a WikiNovice as far as extensive edits are concerned. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've updated the share figure in the info box from 0.9% (March 2008) to 1.2% (June 2008). The March share was anomalous, the June figure is back to its normal level. There's no reason to keep an out-of-date figure which, though correct, was misleading. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Share 

message: It's not quite clear from this section what the debate is exactly. 
The first paragraph seems to be about Classic FM and the commercial radio sector. 
The second para has the questionable assertion that Radio 3 has held its audience in spite of the arrival of Classic FM. It then goes on to mention rather vaguely some recent critcisms and the arrival of Friends of Radio 3 - is this the debate? in which case what has the first paragraph got to do with it?
The third para should be rewritten - I would propose removing the point about a 25% decline because this is talking about share/listening hours and is already out of date.
I don't think the third para contains original research - the RAJAR figures record the decline. This article from The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/16/radio1  reports the record low from last year and this one http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/01/rajars.radio from earlier this year. It seems pretty fair to say that the changes haven't been a success.
If this section is supposed to be about the controversy over policy changes, the first para should be moved elsewhere and there should be  clearer statements and more evidence. How much space is it worth? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a complete rewrite removing (I hope) the necessity for the citation/weasel words/original research tags. Some of the original material was placed elsewhere in an earlier edit. The debate (now controversy)  is now in a historical context with - I think - all claims referenced. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Radio 3 Debate 

message: Not sure what to do with this section. Some of it is out of date (refs to Mixing It, Andy Kershaw) but the whole section could do with some (re)organisation. I certainly think the bit about R3 being in the vanguard of new technology deserves a section of its own. I might shunt that bit out.
Maybe a good place to start would be some of the long-running programmes - Choral Evensong (80 years), Composer of the Week (60 years) and Jazz Record Requests (40 years). Then some notable programmes from the past (if I can find details). And a resume of the present output?
Any feelings that the rest of this should be substantially kept?? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now dropped this section but put several of the points into the expanded intro. Some points are out of date but others will be relevant to the Radio 3 Debate section. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming 

message: I've started this as a new section, limited to the very long-running programmes and Pied Piper. If any of these programmes merit further detail, I'd recommend that a new article be dedicated to them (as Mixing It and Late Junction already have) rather than expanding too much in this article. A new section here could focus on an overview of the current programming.
What I think should be avoided is an endless discussion of favourite programmes. I've deleted the reference to Private Passions (not long-running compared with Choral Evensong &c) though it could be reinstated in a section on current programmes. Similarly, I would propose deleting the special mention of The Early Music Show. The old Programming section has been further cut by the removal of appropriate bits to a Technical Innovations section (which is the renamed section Online developments). Programming will probably expand into Current Schedules. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Programmes 

message: I split the reflist into two columns on my Mac as it was getting rather long, but on my laptop PC (and my old desktop PC) it's still showing as a single column. Anyone have a fix for this? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use Internet Explorer.... It's a known issue with the browser I believe. David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, David. I just tried it on the laptop with Firefox. Bit of a bummer, though, since most people will be using IE. Nowt to be done, then :-( Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reflist columns 

message: I would propose dropping the Radio Frequency Changes section. It's only two sentences and the second one isn't really relevant. If anyone wants to do a complete job on this, detailing the changes and the effects they had on Radio 3, they'll need to start from scratch.
The list of controllers at the bottom isn't really needed since all controllers are listed individually, but it's clear, doing no harm and shows the continuity with the Third Programme. Keep?
There are a few omissions in individual sections which I want to add e.g. details of The Beethoven Experience and A Bach Christmas in Roger Wright's section, and a few citations can be added. But apart from that the only thing I want to do is a complete copy edit, check the reflist for same page refs and perhaps add a Further Reading section.
Erm, should a cropped pic of the Wright/Boulez/RAH photo be available for the RW section that would be useful ....   Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what photo editing software I've got.  I've released it under a licence that means anyone acn do further editing on it in any case.  David Underdown (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look at it then. The detail may not be good enough if cropped and enlarged anyway.  Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It was taken with a camera phone, so that's probably the case.  David Underdown (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final(?) edits 

message: I suspect this paragraph may have to be ditched entirely (??) - pity, since this was the inspiration for the section. I know nothing about any of these facts and have been trying to verify the information. 
Kenholland (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech innovs, para 1 

message: The image :File:Newby2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's  noticeable that articles about current pop singers seem to have pictures of the subjects very readily available. These carry much more influence in terms of publicity/advertising/marketing than a picture of a deceased arts administrator. Perhaps it should be investigated why one is acceptable to Wikipedia and not the other? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Newby2.jpg

message: There's an incident that occurred some time in the 80s:
One night, Radio 3 were broadcasting a live relay of a concert by The Boston Pops Orchestra.
Rather than sending over an OB crew of their own, they took a feed from an American classical music station based in Boston.
The station had the common sense not to broadcast any commercials during the concert - but it under-ran by about ten minutes - the announcer couldn't get back to the studio in time - as a result of which, listeners to Radio 3 were treated to the delights of an American commercial break!
Anybody have a recollection or even a recording of the incident?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurvasey (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American commercial break accidentally broadcast by Radio 3 

message: I don't think it's accurate to say that the future of jazz on Radio 3 is 'uncertain'. The Times article quoted merely reports  Wright as saying there would be no dedicated BBC jazz station. We knew this because there can't be another BBC radio station in the foreseeable future unless one of the existing stations is scrapped. Also Wright replied in the Radio 3 blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/2009/06/jazz-programming.shtml when this was brought up: "I don't know what it says on Wikipedia, but there is certainly no uncertainty at Radio 3 about the future of jazz programming on the station! Our service licence states our ongoing commitment to include it as part of our overall programming and there is no desire to change that."
Unless anyone finds that reply equivocal I'll cut the bit about the future of jazz being uncertain. Or if anyone wants to rephrase it, go ahead.Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I contributed it, I wiped the lot as per possible violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Someone may wish to re-add anything which could be salvaged. --tgheretford (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: And after seeing the blog post, it would be even wiser to remove the information which has caused concern and let the community decide how to proceed. Particularly as jazz on Radio 3 can be a prickly beast to discuss if the Radio 3 messageboard is anything to go by. --tgheretford (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jazz Programming 

message: I have added that the stream seems to be of either 48 kbps or 54 kbps. I know the HD stream is 320 kbps, but it seems only available from within the UK. I think this could be relevant information to this page. Twipley (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bit rate of stream 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on BBC Radio 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080718102126/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/euroclassicnotturno/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/euroclassicnotturno/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 08:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on BBC Radio 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110200529/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/the-magazine/arts/12742/part_3/update-on-three.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/arts/12742/part_3/update-on-three.thtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509061322/http://www.for3.org/news/for3news/for3news.html to http://www.for3.org/news/for3news/for3news.html#Oct11No
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522064643/http://www.ulsterorchestra.com/aboutus/thanks.php to http://www.ulsterorchestra.com/aboutus/thanks.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We have the red link Jazz Now. It seems to be a radio program of BBC Radio 3, but not yet mentioned in this article. If will be mentioned, then the redirect to be made--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jazz Now, radio program? 

message: A section on how much Radio 3 costs would be good  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.157.103 (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget