Talk:BBC News Online

message: I was thinking that the content of BBC News Magazine Monitor could be slimmed down and merged into this article, since a lot of the current content could be considered superfluous and the rest could fit in quite easily within this article. Wikiwoohoo 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just done it. Hope people like it. Wikiwoohoo 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Today, 22 October, the oldest news article still available directly on BBC
News Online is ten years old.
To celebrate I and several others are tying to get it onto today's most
read list. So please could you and all your friends and colleagues read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/14310.stm Thryduulf 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 years 

message: See http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97
This news sub-section of the BBC site could be the oldest news page available.  It still has the old BBC logo! --Jorvik 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would still be on because the BBC never removes any of its new articles, which is an advantage compared to most news websites. This makes it easier to source info on current events portals. :) Jackninja5 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest page

message: I'm looking at BBC.co.uk (international version) right now but I can't see a single banner! When were they supposed to be implemented?82.99.21.74 (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banners?

message: The paragraph regarding the ease of manipulation of rankings, in particular the sentence "It's obvious......nowhere" is IMHO very subjective. Is there any evidence of this which can be cited?
--Yendor1958 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum 

message: According to this they got RSS 0.91 feeds in 2003 and then upgraded to 2.0 in 2000. This appears to be a clear error. PS- If I find the correct info I will add it --82.32.52.223 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Is it known roughly how many articles are printer per day? I would say about 210.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.52.136 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles per/day 

message: This section needs more citation. As an aside though, if moderators are following "their own agenda" in terms of what they allow to be published, then clearly they must be borderline insane, judgding from the frankly nonsensical postings that are often allowed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.201.117 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum 

message: It's ironic that there are probably proportionally less spelling and grammatical errors on the Wikipedia page for BBC News than on the actual website itself. They need proofreaders. Anyone have examples of news stories pointing this out? It's often brought up on forums.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.242.162 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be "fewer errors" ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fewer vs Less is grammatical (not a spelling issue), and for countable nouns (such as "errors"), it is standard. Hoof (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard of written English 

message: An editor keeps inserting unsourced claims about the 2015 redesign being widely criticised. It is absolutely fine for negative criticism of the News Online interface to be discussed in this article but it needs to be given a reliable source, preferably someone writing a criticism in a technology journal or newspaper. Simply saying that it has been slagged off in the comments section of a blog isn't enough I'm afraid. Perhaps if anyone wants to include criticism it could refer to what the "poor usability" actually is. There's no use repeatedly inserting vague, unreferenced claims as they're going to get deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no response after a week so I have removed this statement. If anyone does have a critique of the usability of News Online, it would be very interesting to include this in the article — provided, of course, that it also includes reliable sources.Cnbrb (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of redesign 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on BBC News Online. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/7277283.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With reference to this edit and many other reverted edits before this: if you wish to insert a statement that BBC News Online "primarily contains magazine style non-news", please cite a reliable source such as a newspaper article that says this. Anything that goes into a Wikipedia article has to be backed up by a reference.  
If you are not sure how to add references, paste the link here in this talk page, and other editors will help you to insert it into the article. 
These edits have been reverted because they are simply a personal opinion. Please do not engage in edit warring - it will achieve nothing. Cnbrb (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous IP editor did not pay attention and continued edit warring, so the article page has now been semi-protected. I expect he'll be back, but at least we won't have our time wasted for the next week. Cnbrb (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another attempt to insert this claim today. I can't really be bothered chasing anonymous IP editors around explaining Wikipedia rules, but please note that if you want to insert this statement, it must be backed up with a reliable source. Furthermore, this is a critical evaluation, not a factual statement, and does not belong in the introduction section. Please find a source to cite and stop trying to restart a tiresome edit war. Cnbrb (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine site claims 

message: The article claims, 'The website was launched on 4 November 1997, headed by founding editor Mike Smartt and Project Director Bob Eggington.' The Wayback Machine has a crawl from 9 October of that year. https://web.archive.org/web/19971101000000*/bbc.co.uk/news
One of the site links for that date is dated 8 October?
https://web.archive.org/web/19971009045647/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10/1008/euro.shtml
I'm no expert on the media, but the Wayback data pre-dates the wiki article date.
2A00:23C6:3B89:8A00:7436:61DD:8964:E1E3 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The website was launched on 4 November 1997 ? 

message: Citogogenesis explained via a case study:
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/offbeat/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air Zezen (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP and BBC News Magazine in the news 

message: Steven Spielberg 
Steven Tyler
Steven Jobs 
Steven McQueen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmcnally171028298 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone in history whose name was Steven  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion