Talk:PM (BBC Radio 4)

message: Does anyone know WHY the programme is called PM?  Does it simply stand for Post Meridiem, linked in with the notion that the program 'starts your evening'?  This is worth adding to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez9999 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name? 

message: This programme could be mentioned as a programme that has referred to Wikipedia when David Cameron raised the topic of whether Gordon Brown knew how old Titian was at the time of his death, although there was some subsequent correspondence. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of Wikipedia

message: What has happened to this recently?  Listeners can no longer post comments, because the presenters seem to have stopped adding new threads.
137.108.145.39 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: PM blog

message: Why can’t the PM producers find a decent ‘first reserve’ presenter for whenever Eddie Mair is away?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.39 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: presenters

message: The post-"Saturday PM" slot is mentioned for iPM which it intermittently still inhabits (approx 25 minutes of runtime, leading up to the Shipping Forecast), when a programme like In Business isn't repeating itself in that slot, but no mention is made of iPM being continuously broadcast for (I think) as long as it has existed elsewhere in a 5:45am slot (15 minutes, and thus is more edited 'version' of the 5:30pm 'repeat', when that occurs).  I may check historical listings for more info, but in the meantime I'm putting this out there for anyone who is bothered. 149.254.183.107 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPM 

message: I'd note here that on 23 April PM mentioned on air that their article now reported they had vandalised their own page. In my view this is quite a noteable event, particularly  for users of wikipedia, who are the only people likely to ever see it. This is a start article and logically ought to have much more content, but this is the sort of thing I would find interesting if I had happened to simply look up the page. So it should be in.
However, I am less convinced that this should be described bluntly as vandalism. Firstly, casual readers will not be aware of the special meaning of this amongst wikipedia insiders, and will interpret it in its common meaning. Secondly, vandalism in its special meaning does require that an edit has been made to deliberately harm the article or wikipedia. I do not believe PM were planning to leave the article forever with deliberately false information added, but intended this as a test, as they publicly stated. I do not think  wiki being tested from time to time is a bad thing for the encylopedia as a whole. People editing pages to deliberately alter public perception of themselves, issues or events, or to disparage wiki,  is rather a different matter, but that is not what happened here. I am not sure if PM were able to draw conclusions about how easy it is to subvert an article, because if I was setting out to do that I would not announce the fact on national radio. Sandpiper (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only support including this incident in the PM article if it had any significant coverage in 3rd-party sources (e.g. national newspapers), which does not currently appear to be the case.  At present the refs for the paragraph are unacceptable, being a deleted transcript of the show, a dif for an edit to this article, the PM programme itself, and tweets by PM presenters and journalists.  This incident is mildly interesting for Wikipedia editors, but it is not notable in the long-term, and no more worthy of inclusion in the article than many other quirky experiments that the PM have carried out in the past. BabelStone (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur and support it's removal per WP:UNDUE. SmartSE (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cellan-Jone referred to it as vandalism during the programme, and even if the intent was not malicious it doesn't mean it's not vandalism. You could argue that Banksy's artworks are vandalism and were viewed as such in the early days of his career. With respect to the inclusion of the PM Wikipedia experiment, I agree with Sandpiper - this is the sort of thing I would expect to see on the page, whether or not it was noted by newspapers. We can't rely on newspapers to judge the importance of an event because they are subject to all sorts of constraints, not least the presence of other news - events that took place on September 12, 2001 and September 1, 1997 were probably never documented in the news media if they weren't relevant to the main events of the previous day. Certainly I can't see that this is any less worthy of inclusion than most other things on the page apart from the list of presenters and producers. Why do we need to know that someone prepared for the programme by doing crosswords, or that interviewees would mention Blue Peter badges? In a world where the number of blogs is uncountable, why is it important for people to know that PM used to have a blog? And is it really worth knowing that a BBC radio programme made a contribution to the BBC's Children in Need charity appeal?Hackcyn (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of PM editing by PM, on the page