Talk:BBC Breakfast

References

Although references are listed, they should be formatted so they fit into the article as per: Wikipedia:Citing sources Escaper7 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Former presenters

Too detailed, too long; needs organising into one coherent alphabetical list Escaper7 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied it a bit but could it be improved further? Wikiwoohoo _talk 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I just think a former presenter is a former presenter, doesn't matter whether they were a newsreader, sport presenter etc. An alphabetical list would look much more encyclopaedic. Escaper7 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had been thinking the same myself. You're right, it would look better that way. I'll have a go now. Wikiwoohoo _talk 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

26 Jan 2007 Revert

I've reverted the article to the previous version because I think it was the better choice for the article. It seemed odd to have an article about one program start with a full description of another (Breakfast Time) when that article already has it's own entry and is linked from this article. The heritage from Breakfast Time to Breakfast is laid out in a clearer fashion in the previous version. - X201 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree but the article does need a bit of an overhaul, especially the history section which is a jumble of tenses and styles. Escaper7 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up significantly. It could still do with some work though. Wikiwoohoo 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the clean up. The one problem I've personally got with the BBC Breakfast article itself is the fact that it's listed as a separate programme (which it is) but the article alludes to it being the same programme as Breakfast Time (which it isn't). Either the Breakfast Time and Breakfast News articles need to be merged into this and it to be renamed BBC Breakfast Programmes (Yeah, bad title but you get the idea) or for the Breakfast Time and Breakfast News bits to be briefly mentioned as predecessors with links to their own articles. What do you think? - X201 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your idea for mentioning the previous programmes and adding links to the main articles is the best idea. I left the mentions in before as notes on the heritage of Breakfast so to speak; each programme was effectively relaunched out of the previous one. Wikiwoohoo 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Buisness Reporter

When Declan is away doing special reports, the business bulletins were filled in with a younger woman. I don't know her name but she is not in the article. It would be worth noting her. AndrewJDTALK -- 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be Manisha Tank. She was in the article, I put her there and I didn't realise that she had been removed. - X201 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

or indeed Susannah Streter - X201 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breakfast logo.png

Image:Breakfast logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

26 Jan 2007 Revert

I understand that references to the original show (Breakfast Time) were overlong at one stage, but by excising them completely the reviser made several factual errors, compressing events that had been separated by years. I have therefore corrected the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.42.88 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like what you've done to it. A nice edit. Although none of the text was mine to begin with (or since) I only did the revert. - X201 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Presenters list

Could someone find a way of highlighting the presenter's current positions more clearly? Bill Turnbull now has three different 'Roles' listed, which makes it difficult to easily see what he does there now. If he left, he wouldn't be listed in the table, so as it's for current presenters only surely the current presenters' roles should be more prominent. Perhaps by bolding them, or using different colours?

--88.104.162.64 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the table currently looks messy. I was going to change it to fit in with the style used on the other bulletins articles eg. BBC News at Six. This does not include former roles, but I don't think they are needed within the table. However I was going to wait a few weeks to see what the new rotas are. It appears to be Bill and Susanna (Mon-Wed), Charlie and Louise (Thu-Sat) with Sundays being ? (this week it's Naga and Nick). We also don't know which relief presenters are going to appear and how regularly, which is why I thought waiting a few weeks might be a good idea. But due to all the edit attempts which have messed up the table I might have to do it now and just leave Sundays and relief presenters slightly ambiguous. Uvghifds (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see why you waited! I'm guessing one reason for the past roles to be listed is because, more than on any other programme, the presenters have had different roles since joining Breakfast, and to list Susanna Reid as either '2012-present' or '2004-present Main presenter' would be misleading. Could one solution be to list their time at the programme in the 'Years' column, and then find a way of putting the dates for their current assingment next to role (so, Susanna would be at breakfast '2004-present', and then 'Main presenter (since 2012)', or something to that effect? Any better solutions are welcome... --88.104.162.64 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Presenters tables

After reverting some edits to the presenters table last night I wanted to outlign the current situation with the presenters table. This is the message I left on the user's talk page which I felt other editors may want to see:

The main point was to keep the presenters table on the BBC Breakfast article in the same style as other BBC News tables. I would refer you to articles such as the BBC News at Six, GMT and PM to see how this style is used across a variety of articles. If you order presenters by year you end up sometimes with the anomaly occasional relief presenters being listed above the main presenter. Personally, I think that is not the most user-friendly way we can display information.

The established order used in these tables is:
1) Main presenter(s)
2) Deputy presenter (s)
3) Regular reliefs
4) Occasional reliefs

Not all of these categories apply to every article. Usually presenters within each section are ranked by frequency of their appearances. This may be alphabetical in some articles though.

In the BBC Breakfast table, it seems strange to place Kate Silverton above Charlie Stayt and Louise Minchin as she currently is only an occasional presenter (who hasn't actually presented from Salford yet). I don't think that puts across acurately the personalities you are likely to see on screen.

We have had quite a few problems with the presenters table in the BBC Breakfast article since the move to Salford with all the changes. The set-up of the table was the one agreed between the editors who had been making the initial changes. I will change the order of the table back to the format it was in before (fixing any small errors I can see) tomorrow, if I have not heard back from you. Please feel free to leave me a message if there is anything I have said which you fundamentally disagree with. For me, the most important thing is to keep the aricle in line with as many BBC News programmes as we can.

Best wishes
Uvghifds (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC Breakfast. 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/20130103030910/http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/articles-speeches/hazel-on-bbc-s-salford-move to http://www.hazelblears.co.uk/articles-speeches/hazel-on-bbc-s-salford-move

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) 07:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode guide and presenters

I have removed (multiple times) the "Episode guide" and non-notable presenters from this page per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Please do NOT re-add. If people want to know what days they presenters are hosting, then they will go to the BBC Breakfast website or look at their TV guide... something Wikipedia is not. If users (both I.P.s and created accounts) want to continue this... as in edit warring... I will take the user(s) to an admin. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:BALASPS. Removed again. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, I would like to ask why the majority of information on the BBC Breakfast page is missing. On the subject here is the episode guide.

Collapsed table that swamps discussion

Episode Guide Note [1] - Minichin hosted until 0730, Nugent presented from 0730 until the end of the programme at 0915. 2017 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 January 2017 Roger Johnson 2-8 January 2017 Dan Walker Dan Walker Louise Minchin Charlie Stayt Louise Minchin Jon Kay Rachel Burden Ben Thompson Sian Lloyd 9-15 January 2017 Dan Walker Louise Minchin Charlie Stayt Steph McGovern Christian Fraser Tina Daheley 16-22 January 2017 Dan Walker Louise Minchin Charlie Stayt Steph McGovern Roger Johnson Rachel Burden 23-29 January 2017 Dan Walker Louise Minchin Jon Kay Steph McGovern Charlie Stayt Steph McGovern Ben Thompson Sally Nugent 30 January - 5 February 2017 Dan Walker Louise Minchin Dan Walker Louise Minchin/ Sally Nugent [1] Charlie Stayt Steph McGovern [[[Christian Fraser]] Tina Daheley

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob N1C2 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read the above comments, Bob N1C2. We've made it pretty clear on why the Episode guide can't be listed. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Hope you don't mind, I've moved your reply as it was in the middle of Bob's unsigned reply and template pasting. - X201 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, X201! Thanks for cleaning up the mess! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My two pence: Glad they've gone. Well done for removing them. Clear violation of WP:NOT - X201 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Presenters

There is no point in having a presenter list on this page if it does not include some of the daily presenting line up. As the page has been left it gives the impression that the Business segment has been scrapped which is not the case. For this reason it is neccessary to list Ben Thompson amongst the presenters to provide clarity however notable or not his other work has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.231.133 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed 'Accusation of political bias' section (Boris Johnson cenotaph clip)

I have removed this section because the accusation that BBC Breakfast deliberately used the wrong footage of Boris Johnson in order to mislead viewers and present a pro-Conservative version of events lacks credibility, and is not notable enough to be included in the article without supporting evidence.

I have tried to find sources to support the claim that the wrong footage was used deliberately and have found none. The only evidence found in the supporting article is the claim from one twitter user that such a mistake would be "difficult to make". The tweet provides no evidence of why this would be the case, and the user does not even state in what capacity she worked for the BBC or how long ago. A google search reveals multiple news articles referring to the mistake and the BBC's apology for it, and some articles referring to the reaction on social media, including allegations of a conspiracy or cover-up. Still, none of these articles show any evidence to support the claim.

I have sought guidance from wikipedia guidelines on the reporting of allegations of bias but haven't found any concrete guidance on this subject. I will therefore have to fall back on basic principles of editing: citing reliable sources (WP:CITE, WP:RS) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV and, in particular, WP:WEIGHT). On the first point, only one source is cited in the article. The Independent is not a reliable source in this case because it is a proudly anti-Conservative/pro-Labour publication, so has an interest in publishing stories that either portray Conservatives negatively or support theories of anti-Labour bias. Other outlets that ran with the story included the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun newspapers - all of which are hostile to the BBC and have an interest in stories that portray the BBC negatively.

Given the lack of reliable sources for the story, I do not think that the section maintains a neutral point of view, as it gives undue weight to the allegations without considering the veracity of the allegations or the political motives of those making them. In fact, the section title "Controversies" itself gives undue weight to these allegations, as it implies that there may be legitimate discussion to be had about whether the allegations that BBC Breakfast set out to mislead are true. In fact, there is no such discussion, as no evidence for the allegations has been cited.

carelesshx _talk 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Damp mould

I have been left with lung conditions due to the negligence of my landlord from the aspergilloses in the black mould in my home .

Spencer Gy 2A00:23EE:1440:4650:114D:D903:25BF:2D54 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Mould / aspergillosis

I have been left with lung conditions due to the negligence of my landlord . Happy to discuss .

Spencer Gymer 07958192999 2A00:23EE:1440:4650:114D:D903:25BF:2D54 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Carol Kirkwood

Someone has put Carol Kirkwood's last date on Breakfast as the year 2028, is it true she is leaving in 2028 as it's too early to say Katherine Northey (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoever added it didn't provide a source, so I've reverted it. - X201 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

vandalism

soneone has removed almost all content on this page Katherine Northey (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)