Talk:BBC Radio Lincolnshire
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WHO?
editKeeps editing this page? I've been keeping it as updated as possible for I don't know how long, and someone keeps editing everything.
If there is anything to know about the station, I know it....
What is the point if someone else overwrites all the accuracies?
Why?
editWhy has it been reverted to a version that is full of innacuracies?!! It doesn't make sense!! --Differentgravy 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone shed some light...?
editWith so many RAF stations in the county, and historical airfields, there is no recognition of this in the station's programming.
Does anyone know what this is about? How do you recognise airfields in the station's programming? An hour of jet engine noises? --Throup (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll delete it. --Differentgravy 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What a mess
editThis para is particularly bad, on many levels:
"Only north of Lincoln is the FM frequency reasonably clear. Sadly, however, the good folk of the affluent Northern Lincoln Fringe villages rarely tune in to it because whilst the signal quality is good, the quality of the programming rarely matches the signal."
- "Only north of Lincoln": no, it's fine across huge areas of the county. Lincoln-centric statement.
- "Sadly": pov.
- "affluent Northern Lincoln Fringe villages": what?
- "programming rarely matches the signal": non-encylopedic.
That said, I think that some of the reverts have been rather reactionary. Is there no room for compromise - to describe the occasionally rather parochial content non-pejoratively and in context? TheVenerableBede 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think in respect of most of your points you're referring to the vandalised page - it's now been updated and locked. As for 'rather parochial content' - that is a point of view in itself (therefore the argument over in context and non-pejoratively is invalid), not a fact, so shouldn't exist. However, there should be some additions made to the presenter list, and some of the 'programming' section is out of date - can I suggest a return to this version? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_Radio_Lincolnshire&oldid=62643077 User:Jameswick 23.34 20 July 2006
Absolutely. I just don't think that the content that keeps getting reverted is vandalism, per se, just bady expressed and bullishly asserted. The variation in signal quality in different areas of the county, the demographic of the listernership ("Affluent fringe" et al.(!)), and the nature, scope, and yes, quality of the programming should all be discussed in a radio station article ... just not like this. TheVenerableBede 08:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Alot of things in that article are factually inaccurate, plus, "News reader gaffs" are not encycopaedic. I locked the page due to the heavy amount of vandalism/unneeded reverts. --Differentgravy 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising
editIt looks like someone is repeatedly vandalising this article. Please stop. Lee Stanley 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
BBC Lincolnshire
editIt's been ages since BBC Radio Lincolnshire was rebranded as BBC Lincolnshire. Why has it therefore been renamed from BBC Lincolnshire to BBC Radio Lincolnshire? I request the recent renaming (and the consequent overwriting of the redirect at BBC Radio Lincolnshire be undone.—GrahamSmith (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The station's website is indeed headed "BBC Lincolnshire". However, the station consistently refers to itself on air as "BBC Radio Lincolnshire". -- Picapica (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BBC Radio Lincolnshire. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101174629/http://www.maximumproduction.co.uk/ to http://www.maximumproduction.co.uk/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228170410/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/10/nr_20071024 to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/10/nr_20071024
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228012407/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/dcr/applications/lincolnshire/ to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/dcr/applications/lincolnshire/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304054239/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/02/nr_20080219b to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/02/nr_20080219b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 00:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)