Talk:BBC Radio 2

message: The first paragraph is awfully uneyclopedic. I've already removed some excess chatter about audience size to another section. However, it is still dominated by excess chatter about broadcast method. It could convey that in about half a sentence. It should say briefly more overview stuff - what kind of music is played, perhaps a hint at cultural and historic impact on the UK. Also, all the other BBC Radio stations need similarly good first paragraphs. Some are better/worse than others. Francis Irving (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible first paragraph 

message: Does anyone have anymore information why Radio 2 went off the air during an interview with Mohamed Al-Fayed? (well actually can someone confirm it actually happened and wasnt just a local fault, which i doubt) -Aled D 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down Time 

message: Wasn't Radio 2 simply a renaming of the Light Programme, rather than a "replacement"?
Fourohfour 22:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, I would suggest merging this article with the BBC Light Programme and BBC National Programme articles because these were simply rebranding and reformatting exercises, not entirely new services. 89.240.204.149 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Programme 

message: I am testing the new Infobox Radio Station on this page - if you see any problems, please revert it and tell me (User_talk:Marknew). Thanks! --Marknew 12:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing new Infobox 

message: I'm not sure that "Adult Oriented Pop Music" really does justice to the variety of music that the station plays. As far as the weekday playlist goes, I guess that's pretty accurate. But evening output can include anything from middle of the road to classic rock to folk to country to blues. Sundays are much more MOR oriented, with some pop-type slots (notably Sunday Love Songs and Pick of the Pops). Having said that, I'm not sure there's an easy way of summarising it for a short infobox entry. Has anyone else considered any of this? --Matthew Humphreys 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Station format

message: According to section 1.7.7 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the discussion on the talk page, articles should not include schedules for a particular radio or TV service. The schedule on this page is slightly different. Would it be better to write a brief sentence on each presenter, what they broadcast, the content of their show, times of broadcast and so on rather than a schedule. Sonic 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seemed a convenient way of providing and arranging the list of current presenters. By all means, if you think it violates Wikipedia policy then change it, but I can't see that there's any neater way of doing it. -Bonalaw 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should in my opinion have two sections, one for Presenters, including the  tag to the presenters article, the on-air time for the show and a synopsis of the show they present, the features and music played on the show etc. And then the same thing with the Specialist Shows broadcast on Radio 2. It needs someone with a bit more time and knowledge to do it though than I have! Sonic 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also waiting to see if there is a potential legal issue with other editors placing radio schedules into BBC network radio articles, futher information and the discussion is here if anyone can help: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Potential legal issue with UK Radio station schedules --tgheretford (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedule - Unencyclopedic? 

message: This needs to be explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AOR

message: Do we really need this section? I just think it clutters the page.  I'm trying to make the Radio 2 page look similar to the  Radio 1 page layout.
If no one objects to the deleting of this section then it I shall remove it. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsreaders and travel presenters (current)

message: Why does the brief history section fail to mention that BBC 2 was originally on longwave??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.202.40 (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: BBC 2 

message: An anonymous user has taken Jonathan Ross out of the schedule and added him to the former presenters list. But Ross isn't actually leaving, is he? He's just been suspended for 12 weeks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now added (currently suspended) to Ross's entry on Past Presenters. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I agree with you. He should have stayed where he was under the 'Saturday' heading with a note that he is currently suspended, but when I changed it back, my edits were anonymously reverted. I couldn't be bothered to argue at the time so opened this discussion instead. Feel free to remove him from the list of past presenters. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Ross 

message: The Controversy section was slightly biassed in places so I've re-written it. Not sure whether its currently in the right place though. Also perhaps it should be expanded to include other Radio 2 controversies (the Johnnie Walker incident for example). TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now included a paragraph on the 1999 Johnnie Walker episode with one ref. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Gentlemen once again we find ourselves quoting inaccuracies on wikipedia. Radio 2 is broadcast between the 88 and 91 mhz frequencies actually. Is it any wonder Wikipedia is a laughing stock when we cant get basic information right. Furthermore some people on this discussion board have written some pretty scathing things about contributors who have tired to write or add to this article. Can I please ask if you make criticism you do so in a respectful and constructive way instead of sitting there lording it over everyone else. Thank you.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.71.1 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially the frequency is correct. Check any TV/radio listings magazine. I'd imagine they probably use '88-91 FM' on air because it's a bit easier than having to say '88.1-90.2 FM'. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Having looked into this matter I find that this is also the case with other national BBC radio stations. Perhaps we should list all relevant frequencies (see for example 106.6 Smooth Radio which also broadcasts on 101.4 in the Derby area, where the other frequency has been added). Feel free to do this if you can provide some supporting references. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect FM Frequency

message: Someone changed their slogan from "Online, On Digital and on 88-91FM" to "Amazing Music by an Amazing Lineup". I've changed it back. If you Google the phrase "Amazing Music by an Amazing Lineup" you get links relating to Radio 2, but don't get any significant results, whereas if you chack Radio 2's homepage "Online, On Digital and on 88-91FM] is displayed prominently on the screen. Why do people do these things? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan 

message: Hasn't Terry Wogan stopped hosting the morning show? --Kris159 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terry Wogan 

message: Here's how this works.  If you have a source, a current source, which shows he is not part of radio 2 or 5 live, a source which refutes these sources, then it's fine.  Otherwise, there is absolutely no grounds to delete this information based on personal testament and obvious dislike.  That's it.
Regarding Radio 2
*The BBC! "you can also hear him on BBC Radio 2 with presenters such as Jonathan Ross and Chris Evans." http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/birmingham/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8366000/8366311.stm
*The Guardian "Andrew Peach - so sober reading Radio 2 news bulletins – makes a warm and friendly breakfast host on Radio Berkshire, says Elisabeth Mahoney" http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/15/the-andrew-peach-show-radio-berkshire
*Twitter (per WP:BLPPRIMARY to augment the secondaries: "I present news and phone-ins on BBC Radio 2, BBC Berkshire and BBC WM. But my real purpose is to be a great Daddy to Isaac and Martha." http://twitter.com/andrewpeach
Regarding 5 live
* The BBC! "Next on: Sunday, 22:00 on BBC Radio 5 live   Synopsis   Andrew Peach is in for Stephen Nolan with topical debate." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wkl18
There's nothing else to it.  He's part of bbc radio 2 and he 'has stood in' or 'stands in' for 5 live.  Don't like it, find a better source.  Please don't keep reverting it.  It will only lead to a block of the account. Ocaasi (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that would constitute original research, which is prohibited here.  Please read Verifiability and Reliable Sources as well.  Once you understand these, you can attempt to clarify the situation in line with these policies.  You might also read our conflict of interest policy.  Perhaps you can have one of your connections point us to a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.  That is the most that could happen.  Unless you can meet that bar, it's unlikely continued protestation will help.  Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks.  It's basically already resolved, but it is helpful.  The broadcast itself would be a WP:PRIMARY source and your report that you heard it is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH but a link to him currently on the radio would be good supporting evidence (see:WP:BLPPRIMARY).  And, it also generally reflects that the mission to scrub him from this article has some non-factual motivations. Ocaasi (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: We don't base articles on user comments but on sources.  'Hardly' seems to qualify him for a mention in that section given the published sources.  You care that much about the difference between hardly and sometimes?  I'd suggest finding a new way to relate to this individual who obviously causes you some frustration.  Changing this article won't do it.  Ocaasi (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio Info

message: The nomination for GA status has been quick-failed. The feedback is at: Talk:BBC Radio 2/GA1. The subject of this article is important, and I encourage people to develop it by adding reliable sources. You can take the article to Wikipedia:Peer review for more extensive feedback. The JPStalk to me 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: Andrew Peach is only a freelance newsreader on BBC Radio 2. He only covers shifts. Ricky Salmon is a daytime reader, usually in during the week and weekends. Andrew Peach doesn't have a regular slot. He should be put in evenings. --188.221.183.71 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, any changes related to Andrew Peach need to be sourced to an official publication of the BBC, or a reliable independent source such as a newspaper, trade journal, or entertainment website.  Can you provide sources for these positions as you've described them? Ocaasi c 19:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi, our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy requires that sources be published.  That means we can't just ask experts directly.  If your bosses have published a schedule somewhere (newspaper, website, trade journal) or that schedule has been reported on by others in such a source, then it's considered an acceptable source.  I don't know or care who edits articles, just that they are sourced well.  (It's not clear that Mr. Peach has a bias or whether you do. It's clear you have some personal involvement here but regardless, that's why we rely on sources).  I believe initial sources have been provided that show him working in those timeslots, and I'm not sure the categories are for official shifts.  If you can show me an updated schedule that has been published it could have bearing on the layout.  You do realize that the only people who read the BBC Radio 2 Wikipedia article schedules are only BBC 2 radio employees, most likely.  Still, if you can provide sources we can always make changes. Ocaasi c 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Please don't start an edit war on this page because the other one is locked. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: That's okay, we have sources linked on this page in the sections above.  You'll have to provide sources to show they're no longer accurate. Ocaasi c 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: You've told me to get a staff set list or a televised interview. Why would Andrew Peach have a televised interview? Newsreaders are not mentioned in radio listings as they are not part of the show. They are there to read the news. As Ricky said, lets just have a group which says "newsreaders" as make it simple! That way nobody is bigged up more than others. 188.221.183.71 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a staff set list please, or a published reliable source.  The Andrew Peach issue has prior sourcing: ("you can also hear him on BBC Radio 2 with presenters such as Jonathan Ross and Chris Evans." ; Chris Evans was a daytime reader, and Jonathan had a Saturdays morning show.)  I don't see why we should change the entire section.  Also, your personal involvement and opionion make any changes subject to even more scrutiny and higher sourcing standards.  Ocaasi c 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Sources please.  Also, you appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry, attempting to increase the perception of others supporting your view by logging in from multiple accounts.  Either way, sources are required.  We don't vote here, so more people with the same opinion without sources are not the fix. Ocaasi c 09:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I think we can safely the say the links above show that Andrew doesn't read the news for Chris Evans anymore. Since Chris moved onto breakfast on Radio 2, the breakfast newsreaders have been Moira Stuart as the main anchor, and Charles Nove and Alan Dedicoat covering when Moira is off. Of course, another point is. Removing the categories will solve the argument. 188.221.183.71 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's curious that both our i.p.s use the phrase "bigging himself up" with characteristic instinct.  I am sticking up for him because sources did, and you have expressed a personal bias which is coming through in your insistence.  If it matters to you, I've never heard BBC 2 radio in my life.  You apparently, work there.  Please review WP:COI.  I'll check those sources, but I removed the edit until I can confirm them. Ocaasi c 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I checked.  The sources don't mention Andrew Peach's change in position, or who stands in at those times, or that he's an evening reader.  I'd like to see a full schedule to support the changes you're suggesting.  Ocaasi c 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Why have you chosen to ignore the comment from Ricky. he is correct, and so are others who think there should be just ONE group - not mentioning daytime or evening. (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Peach 

message: Are you going finish this argument and accept that I do more daytime shifts at Radio 2 than any other freelance nrwsewader there? I may be 'just a breakfast presenter' but I also class myself as a daytime reader at Radio 2. Ricky is only there at weekends. I on the other hand are there weekdays as I usually get first refusal on any shifts going spare! (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if you are who you claim to be, did you or did you not present bulletins this last Sunday evening (8 May)? TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I listen to Radio 2 a lot on Sunday evenings, and it always seems to be Ricky Salmon, Chandrika Chevli or Tina Richie reading the bulletins. Colin Berry also did a stint recently. To my mind this is a really pointless argument. Perhaps we should just take the Daytime/Evening/Weekend headings out and just have a list of newsreaders. That would end this debacle once and for all. If others are in agreement (apart from anon ips from the BBC and such) then I propose to change the article in a few days - probably at the weekend. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: In the grand scheme of things does anyone actually care other than BBC employees? :) If you are Ricky Salmon then I apologise for getting it wrong. I'm sure I have heard you on Sunday evenings - it's pretty much the only time I listen to the network these days - but admittedly not for some time so perhaps you did the odd stint in the past and it stuck in my memory. Anyway, enough of this silliness now. As I've said above, if nobody objects (nobody apart from BBC employees, anon ips, and such) then I'll make the suggested changes next weekend. And with that, I sign off. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi, the article is protected not for any one person but because editors are making changes without providing sources to back up the claims.  The last sources we have show Peach reading during the daytime.  They are dated but given the level of personal focus on one newsreader I'm suspicious about further changes until there is something to back them up.  I did contact BBC through email and did not receive a response.  There is also a concern about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on, since it appears a conversation is taking place among several new and ip accounts who all share identical views as well as the same level of somewhat irritated or frantic concern and similar rhetoric.  I'm going to request a checkuser look into this.  Until then, please go find better sources. Ocaasi c 17:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser is a great idea. Anyway, I've removed the daytime/evening headers because I can't really see the point of having them, and it's causing too much hassle. De we really need to know when Peach reads the news, or is it enough just to say that he is a newsreader on Radio 2? Personally I'm of the latter school of thought, but I think this argument is pointless and it should end here and now. There are far more important things in life to worry about. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daytime Shifts 

message: In the schedule section Michael Parkinson should be replaced with Jools Holland. David Rodigan needs to be replaced with Gloria Estefan. And Michael Ball should be replaced by Terry Wogan. These are all due to new schedule changes which haven't been updated on the wikipedia page.
Liam141093 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: In general I guess the schedule is the reliable source needed for this, but I actually thought schedules were discouraged on Wikipedia. And herein lies the problem of including them. Some pogrammes on Radio 2 (especially evening ones) change every few weeks, so updating them becomes problematic. I favour a return to listing the presenters which then needs less maintenance. Any thoughts. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 12 November 2011 

message: Openmy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 12 December 2011 

message: I would like to have an edit request to change any schedule changes on Radio 2 if and when they happen.
Openmy (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 12 December 2011 

message: Please may I have permission to delete Gloria Estefan from the Radio 2 schedule as her Radio 2 series has now ended.
Openmy (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You already have. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 23 December 2011 

message: The 'Slogan' has recently changed to "Online, On Digital Radio, and on 88 to 91 FM"
Pdt50 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 21 January 2012 

message: You might have noticed that recently I've sort-of become the guardian of the "presenters" and "past presenters" section (which, I might add, was not my intention at all) so I thought I'd initiate a discussion on what actually constitutes a presenter. Being a popular station it attracts many people to present various series, running often for 6 weeks or so, so should we list them as presenters? Or should it be simply those who have regular shows (Chris Evans, Graham Norton, Janice Long, et al)? What about those that pop in and out every few years or so to do fairly long series, such as Michael Parkinson or Tim Rice?
It'll be interesting to hear your views.
Aw16 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should just stick to having the regular presenters mentioned. Vorbee (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also often run back through radio stations, particularly for presenters who should always for WP be notable (with their own WP articles or multiple refs to show they deserve one, per WP:LISTPEOPLE) and weeding out detailed programming (per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE). I think this query is covered in the Radio 2 article; those radio peripatetics who just pop in for the odd item fit under the 'Notable guest presenters' section. Those who temporarily fill-in for regular presenters, such as Craig Charles for Steve Wright, are listed under the 'Notable stand-in presenters'. The word 'Notable' should always be added to all presenters in all radio station articles as there is too much temptation to add a myriad of nonentities. Your particular observation on this could also be presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC if you wish if this is still an issue after five years. Acabashi (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presenters List 

message: Don't like this:  'Terry Wogan's replacement Derek Jameson also appealed to an older, down-market demographic'
What does 'down-market' mean in this context? Mr Morden76 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious phrasing 

message: When users click on Good Morning Sunday they are directed to the Radio 2 article. I think Good Morning Sunday should be a stand-alone article. What do others think? Rillington (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Morning Sunday