Radio Stations Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

BBC Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

I consider the change in format made this afternoon by Rangoon11 to be undesirable as the two-tier format is unnecessary, adds no value, makes the table less readable and breaks alignment with other BBC radio templates.

I also consider the few external links in this template to be useful – a consideration which in my view outweighs their deprecation.

Jim Craigie (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a few changes this afternoon and it might be helpful to list them all:

1. Addition of the Radio 4 logo (which is regarded as being in the public domain according to its licensing tag). Templates very often have an image, including BBC templates (e.g. BBC News, BBC Radio and the main BBC template). A field exists for this purpose.
2. Addition of a 'below' bar with a link to the topic Category. Perfectly standard.
3. Removal of embedded external links from within the template. These are highly deprecated and non-standard.
4. Removal of external links from bottom of template. These are deprecated, but I can see a case for inclusion, although personally I don't favour it.
5. Use of sub groups. This is a very common organising approach used in WP templates, and the scripting specifically supports it. The main BBC Radio template, which is the only other BBC template included in the Radio 4 article, uses sub-groups. It is true that some of the other BBC Radio station templates do not at present, but they are all in need of work. Also they do not appear together on articles.
6. Changed state to collapsed. The template is of a size that a collapsed state is in my view most appropriate. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim - I'm unsure what your concern is with the sub groups as they organise the info in the template in a logical and neat manner. (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done for putting in the effort to improve this table Rangoon11. I am going to remove the red links from the announcers section of the table. But my main concern is the sub groups system. Although it is useful for clasifying the many programmes on the station, my first thought was that this made the box far too large. I don't have strong opinions either way at the moment, but I will take another look later. Uvghifds (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the removal of the red links.

I don't think that the sub groups have added much to the template size, as it makes little difference to width whether the word 'programmes' is in a parent group or repeated each time in each separate group. The addition of an image has made the template a little larger as has the 'People' parent group. It is worth noting that the template is now defaulted to collapse.

Another benefit of sub groups is the additional flexibility which they offer. For example, the option of having an 'other' section for programmes and the ability to be more flexible with sub divisions. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering - what is the inclusion criteria for this template? Bob talk 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot I asked this question (seven years ago), but I'm going to remove some of the programmes not being produced any longer, as it could be argued any of the programmes in Category:BBC Radio 4 programmes should be here under the current criteria. Bob talk 18:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone for listing programmes that have been produced and broadcast roughly within a two year window, on the assumption that's a rough guide to if it's been recommissioned or not. This retains the long-running programmes, although has meant the loss of a couple of famous but long-since out of production programmes. Bob talk 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]