Talk:BBC Domesday Reloaded

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BBC Domesday Reloaded article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

BBC Low‑importance

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

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.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Would this not be better as a section of the BBC Domesday Project article? Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but I think it's a bit early to say. It was first suggested at Talk:BBC Domesday Project#BBC Domesday Reloaded. Before it was created, a couple of articles were already linking to it, e.g. Maughold (parish)#References. --Trevj (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Keep as separate article, seems to pass the criteria at WP:WEB Badgernet ₪ 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts were not that it's not notable enough for coverage, but that there is so little content here that it would fit better with the article that gives all the background to it. If it is merged this title should definitely remain as a redirect to the section. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Corrections

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I was involved in the both the original and reloaded projects I shouldn't correct these things myself but there are misconceptions in the following bit:

BBC Learning worked with The National Archives to digitise the material.[8] The data was extracted to a PC compatible computer by communication with the BBC Master which hosted the original system. The transfer was facilitated by Simon Guerrero and Andy Finney, who were involved in the original project.

The work on digitising the material was done for the National Archives (Public Record Office at the time) but not for the reloaded project, it was much earlier preservation work and BBC Learning were not involved in that, only BBC R&D (see www.domesday.org.uk). The National Archives were involved in online preservation of the Reloaded work incorporating it into the UK Government web archiving system.

Great though Simon's work was, he wasn't on the Domesday Project team in 1984-6 (although I was). I (Andy Finney) wasn't involved in the digital data transfer, just the audio-visual reclamation work. I think the reference does explain this, it's just been subbed incorrectly. Note that the attempt to digitise images from a disc and player wasn't of sufficient quality so reloaded used images from tapes that I supplied to them.

Also, eMoot did produce the table, so it's odd to describe it as 'reported', which implies something more vague.

Can an editor without a POV conflict sort this out please?

Delverie (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for these useful comments. Although WP:AVOIDCOI recommends avoiding editing, my understanding is that it's not explicitly prohibited. Therefore, I personally would assume good faith of edits you may wish to do here, provided that your conflict of interest is declared, unbiased sources are cited and no original research is included. As your points above are basically factual, if you have additional citations or wish to correct the paraphrased wording there should be no major problem in your doing so IMHO. (However, it may be worth waiting a reasonable amount of time before doing so in case other editors feel differently about your position.)

Anyway, an editor will probably get around to working on it at some point from the info you've posted here. Thanks again. -- Trevj (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC Domesday Reloaded. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic