Talk:Thought for the Day

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.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio: UK Low‑importance

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 articles

Low

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

This page is within the scope of the UK Radio taskforce. New members are always welcome!

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:

Section on Pope Benedict[edit]

This section appears to be highly biased.There are 65 words stating that a single episode was made by the Pope, and the context of the year when that episode was made. 14 of those words briefly describe the contents of that episode. This is followed by 45 words about opposition to that episode from special interest groups

The whole inclusion would appear unnecessary, but having far more biased criticism about the episode than information about it's contents seems highly inappropriate.

This section should be expanded or deleted.

Anruari (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Platitude of the Day link[edit]

According to WP:Notability "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles", so notability is not the correct criterion to determine whether a link should be included.

As far as I can tell it might match Wikipedia:EXT#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 12 "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I'm not sure how "recognized authority" is meant to be interpreted. Is anyone aware of any more detail on "recognized authority"?

Speaking as an atheist / agnostic with an interest in Thought for the Day, the site provides a valuable analysis of the Thought of the Day thoughts from an non faith perspective presented in the form of a mild parody. I am sensitive to the fact that some may find this offensive, but it is not Wikipedia policy to censor content because some users may find the content offensive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Images_of_Muhammad for a recent example of this). I consider the link to be valuable and relevant as it provides relevant information on the response to the TftD restriction on non religious thoughts.

I've tried to amend the text that was used to provide more explanation of what the site is for, and why it is relevant. Perhaps we could work on tidying that up a bit. I think it's NPOV at the moment, but please edit it if you disagree. --Robhu 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem more appropriate than creating a separate topic at this time. Neilplatform1 13:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilplatform1 (talk • contribs)

Neilplatform1 - are you saying that you think the article would be better with the Criticism heading removed? I added the heading after I made the comments here about the include of the link. --Robhu 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhu (talk • contribs)

A Category is Now a List, but where is it best placed?[edit]

I created a category entitled "Radio 4 Thought for the Day Presenters", but this got deleted in March 2009, on the grounds that it was probably better presented as a list. I have put a list of "Thought for the Day" presenters in the article, but structurally, I wonder whether it is in the best position in the article. For example, the reference to the feature on Radio 2 could arguably precede the list. Does any one have any suggestions? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

I just wanted to say that I think this is a very good article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I've place the NPOV banner on the page because the majority of the article is concerned with criticism from a special interest group. It seems too much emphasis is being placed on this and there is little or nothing about the opposing view. CarterBar (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List not prose needed[edit]

I disagree with the tag that says the list may be better presented as prose - the list makes the article easier to navigate. ACEOREVIVED (talk)

Lift Up Your Hearts[edit]

>> Lift Up Your Hearts [...] was first broadcast five mornings a week on the BBC Home Service from December 1939, initially at 7.30, though soon moved to 7.47. <<

It was, in fact, broadcast on six days a week (Mon–Sat), and was moved to 7.55 (not AFAIK 7.47) from May 1940. I believe it was at the end of WW2 – when broadcast weather forecasts returned to radio – that Lift Up Your Hearts was rescheduled to 7.50, to precede the weather forecast at 7.55. Will delay making any edits, however, until such time as others have had an opportunity to substantiate the 7.47 claim. --Picapica (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thought for the Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013062341/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/religion/programmes/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baines[edit]

Could Nick Baines be added to the list of people who have presented Thought for the Day?Vorbee (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) So could John Bell.Vorbee (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]