Talk:BBC Radio 3

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

BBC Start‑class Top‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

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

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (British 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.

Radio

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Radio Stations

	Radio portal This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bleeding chunks

I'm not quite clear what is felt to be in need of citation here. The fact that a conductor (probably Beecham) used the phrase - not necessarily directly in relation to Radio 3, but just on the pratice of playing extracts in general, or that radio 3 tends not to play extracts, which is pretty evident from the online schedules. David Underdown 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite clear, or, more properly, it's quite clear that the preceding comment needs a semi-colon (not a full stop, or period) after the words "citation here". --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Francis Tovey coined the phrase according to http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8529(199323)51%3A4%3C589%3ABCSRAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.15.138 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

I've twice reverted chagnes to a "new" logo. So far as I can see the Radio 3 website and all current promotinal stuff (and I see quite a lot of Proms programmes at the moment) is still using the "old" logo. I don't see any justification for changing this article until the "new" logo is in widespread use, and I've seen no evidence of it actually being used anywhere yet. David Underdown 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I added a original research tag to the claims that BBC Radio 3's ongoing rebranding has not been a success. Unless a source can show that because of the rebranding that the station has lost listeners, then it needs to be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it RAJAR figures on all measures are now at or near to all-time lows, and the general trend had been downward since Roger Wright's installation as Controller (the quarter which covers The Proms each year tends to buck that trend, but I think that even then 2007 figures for that quarter were lower than the same quarter in 2006). There certainly is pres coverage out there, and analysis at http://www.for3.org (their discussion forum contains a number of links to the press coverage), but since I'm a supporter of that group and listed as such on the website, I've tended to avoided editing that aspect of this article as I clearly have a conflict of interest. David Underdown (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise declare an interest as a supporter of FoR3. This is a contentious issue and I'd prefer not to contribute to the section. I'll dig out some references to support the point that's being made but may leave it to someone else to edit the entry. I have, nevertheless, edited the figure for 'share' in the information box from 0.9% (March 2008) - which was an anomalously low figure - to 1.1%-1.2% which is nearer the average, as the RAJAR reference will show. However, you don't need to be a professor of mathematics to see that when a station has a share as small as this, it takes a seismic change for that station in order to register a noticeable difference in share. This did happen in March 2008 but wasn't sustained the following quarter, and therefore it isn't a figure which one can justify quoting, other than if it was the most recent figure - which it isn't any longer. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]