Talk:Radio Times

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radio Times. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article

Do we know when (if ever) the definite article was dropped from the title of the magazine? It is clearly visible in the 1923 and 1931 issues shown in the illustrations in the article. In the text of the article it is used inconsistently – sometimes there, sometimes not. It would be as well to follow the forms used by the BBC at the relevant points in the magazine's history, if anybody knows what those forms were. I think the British Library has a complete set of the magazine, and can check if needed. Tim riley talk 09:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligibility

Perusing the article out of genuine curiosity and have noticed it's very poorly written in many places, almost unintelligibly so. I'm happy to (and probably will) proofread & edit it myself, especially where it's simply a typo or missing/misused word, but there are whole passages where it's badly written enough that it's, at least to me, somewhat hard to understand what it actually means (see below, and not the worst example, just the quickest to copy): "Since its published on Tuesdays (the day having gradually moved forward from Fridays over many years) and carried listings for the following Saturday through to Friday, before issues ran from Sunday to Saturday, while the changeover that from 8 October 1960 which was listed twice." The only bit of that which makes sense to me as a complete phrase is the bit in brackets/parentheses, and following that, the next couple of phrases, but those two only in isolation, not together, as a whole meaningful thing, and the last phrase is (without judging the author(s) and purely literally) actually not coherent Do I attempt to correct, which would be preferable, or just restart/totally rewrite parts like this (where the facts don't seem as if they'll be too hard to find out) completely given even correcting will require research on my part? Cordelia1898 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations

The list of BBC radio stations seems superfluous; or at least better suited to an article on that topic. Shall we remove it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Radio_Times"