Talk:Children in Need

2007 event
I entered an event under 2007 and it was removed. It was not a link to a personal page but a link to a giving page. This may not have been _the_ BBC giving page but it is a site sanctioned by them for giving to the 2007 appeal. The event was indicative of the type of events happening all around the country to raise money for this appeal. As such I have countermanded the reversion by User:Shanes. It would have been polite to at least add a talk entry to discuss whether such events were allowed. Examples of a class of event are used in many places ... indeed CiN itself is just an example of the class of telethon events. Pbhj 11:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was actually me who reverted the original edit. I've removed it again for two reasons: 1) I don't believe that it is appropriate content. There are so many hundreds or thousands of events happening all over the country that you can't include such a specific link to one individual event.  2) The link doesn't even work at the moment; there's just an error message (I admit that the error may be temporary and I'm sure the page is genuine, but it can't currently be verified.) If I'm in the minority about the appropriateness of the entry, then fine.  --Whoosher 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "you can't include such a specific link to one individual event" ... don't be silly. Transient errors are part and parcel of the internet. I presume you checked out the parent page [justgiving.com] and realised that this company is paid by CiN (along with other charities) to host a service for people making donations to them. Or maybe you checked out justgiving?
 * Examples of a class are a valid type of entry which illuminates this particular article. Not all the celebrity events were listed so I guess you'll be deleting that bit too? So I disagree with you still but I'm not into edit wars, so I'm sure you feel smug and self-important now. 91.108.182.143 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia exists not to promote Children in Need, despite it being a worthy cause. The examples quoted were irrelevant and of no value to the article Paul210 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As then is much of the article. 91.108.133.28 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please could you elaborate on what parts of the article you believe irrelevant to the subject of Children In Need? Peteb16 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They're gonna smash last years total... Pedgeth (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something missing here... I can't find any mention of Celebrity Scissorhands in the 2007 section! Peteb16 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They havent mentioned it during the actual broadcast. Strange that... Pedgeth (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very! I've added anyway as a seperate section which links to the main article. Peteb16 (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about "The Songbirds"? Pedgeth (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently Wikipedia doesn't. But I did find them elsewhere on t'internet. Peteb16 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pudsey history
Should there be a bit more about Pudsey Bear on this page like history and origins. After all this site does redirect from Pudsey Bear. If not should the sites be unconnected? --Jonwood1 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, its how i found the page Pedgeth (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The inspiration for a yellow bear mascot may have originally come from Harry Corbett's Sooty bear. 4 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.170.213 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

2006 updates
Well done everyone, especially Peteb16 for keeping the 2006 event up to date :) Pedgeth 2:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peteb16 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2007 updates
Nice to see Peteb16 back :) -- Pedgeth (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nice to see you again too. Stone me, is it really a year since we last did this? Peteb16 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Phew! a break during the news and a decent line up for QI -- Pedgeth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, back to it, see you at 2 ish... -- Pedgeth (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're doing a smashing job. Nice to see we caught the totals from the start this year. Sorry about the earlier mistake with the presenters - I missed the beginning. Peteb16 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * no probs dude, youre doing a great job keeping me right :) Pedgeth (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the upcomg repeats of the dragons den and doctor who segments?Pedgeth (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note added to both to say they were shown twice? Peteb16 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Done Guys, I think we got everything. See you next year Pedgeth (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Peteb16 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the pages?
Should, after tonight's event, consideration given to separating the pages in to their respective years. That way the CIN master page just contains the premise of the show, with links to each year. Only the current year being filled in, then moved after the event? PS Great page to who is doing it. --Whoosher (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. anemone  |  projectors  23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The individual events are starting to steal focus from the primary subject of the article. Also, this is already being done for Comic Relief for the same reason. It would be great if the same format was followed. Peteb16 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until tomorrow though hey, i's hard enough keeping it on one page... Pedgeth (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Peteb16 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just adding my voice here: once the dust has settled on the 2007 event, there should definitely be a split. That would also allow, for example, the 2006 event to be covered in more detail than just the mostly bare lists we have now - though that would need proper inline referencing. 86.132.138.84 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the articles were split, the current lists we have now would need to be expanded greatly with citations, (preferably) pictures, proper prose text, etc. The current lists are not worthy articles on their own. mattbuck (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with splitting off segments as failure to do so would result in the page size exceeding its quota at a later stage thereby requiring a trim down anyway. -TonyW (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be a large concensus for splitting the articles... so I have. I hope this is okay. Peteb16 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot better. Well done Peteb!--Whoosher (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peteb16 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor change
The line (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_Need&diff=171994422&oldid=171993766) was quite insignificant

Controversy
Is this section really relivant? Larklight (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think it is notable?Larklight (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, it's more relevant to Terry Wogan himself rather than the charity or show. Peteb16 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed Larklight (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is relevant and properly referenced and is now properly reinstated.This story made the national press and provoked much discussion. Paul210 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering how important their work is, and how large they are, the section takes up a disproportionately large amount for what is one man's fee, that no longer tkaes place. Larklight (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The section only takes up five lines of the article.That could hardly be described as excessive space.Paul210 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Five lines is more than all of it's history, or all 0f 2005, 2006 and 2007 on my browser. It is excessive given the length of the article, and should be trimmed at the very least.Larklight (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In its current form, it looks somewhat POV to me. Most notably, the bit that reads "While Wogan's fee has been paid from BBC resources and not from the Children in Need charity fund, there is no record of Wogan ever having repaid any of these fees." That he never gave back what he'd been paid does not appear to be relevant. Did he promise to, and then fail to follow through? Was he asked to, and refused? If so, please source. It is not Wikipedia's place to say that he ought or ought not to have. While this wording may on the surface be a simple statement of fact, the wording appears to imply, by my reading of them at least, that there is something wrong with him having not done so. I am, as such, going to do a bit of re-write for NPOVing purposes. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is such detail on this apparent 'controversy' and I can hardly see anything on what value the 30+ million (in one year!) gave to children charities. Always easier to destroy than to create... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someblokeintheuk (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed line "Children in Need were also criticized for giving some of the money donated by viewers to help the children of the Apprentice Boys of Derry parade". There is no reference cited. The Apprentice Boys secretary is unaware of any controversy relating to CiN, also unaware of who "children of the Apprentice Boys of Derry parade" are given that there is no youth section of their organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottr85 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2007
I propose all the performance details should now be removed from the 2007 segment. The show has been and gone. The amount raised is recorded. The rest is clutter in what should be a concise article Paul210 (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that such information isn't concise to this particular article which I believe is why a split has been proposed. If this information was in an article about the event itself then this information would be a useful reference and therefore shouldn't be removed at this stage. Peteb16 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article now looks rather awkward and cumbersome with all the unecessary 2007 show info taking up a disproportionate amount of space. If this info has to remain,can it not be condensed down to several lines? The same goes for the 2006 info still hanging around. Paul210 (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a reasonable concensus for a split, so we should probably do that instead. Peteb16 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Source
I deleted a dead link Larklight (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

2008
Where are the ratings for this years show? As well as ratings for 2004- some are missing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting info
A women in the Uk had changed her name to Pudsey(after the bear) and was denied a renewal passport becuase of this name change. Should be mentioned somewhere. --Cooly123 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC newsreaders skit
How about for the 2009 appeal, they perform a number of Michael Jackson, U2 or Elton John songs??? --Cooly123 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have its own subsection and mentioning that it occurs each year. --Cooly123 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Tickets
How can one receive tickets to the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey is a tax exile
Should it be noted that Shirley Bassey is a tax exile? Readers may wish to be aware that British "celebrities" avoid paying for British children in need.

Fees
How much do celebrities get paid for doing performances for this so-called charity? I know that presenter Terry Wogan gets paid a healthy sum for presenting the show. Surely, more money could be raised for charity if less was rased for the pockets of the celebs? Maybe if more money actually went to Children who are in need, there would be less work for children in need to do!--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Don%27t_look_back_in_anger 16:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't look back in anger (talk • contribs)

Update 2010
Hi, i'm new to the site and therefore can't edit the page but could someone update the official singles, as the 2010 single has been confirmed today as Love You More by JLS. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMaster2010 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This has supposedly change again.--Cooly123 01:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC newsreaders do Time Warp
What year did this occur? I cant find this anywhere, I believe it was 2004.--Cooly123 01:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This indicates 2002. Keith D (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the event / prevention of recentism
What about introducing a table along the lines of this to show the dates of each years event, amounts raised where known and the various presenters. The table could then link to the article for the relevant year so that it doesn't drag on and on with the "recent events" section each year. Seedybob2 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've got so far (and a reference)


 * It's a good idea and a tidy table, but I think it would be hard to populate it. Where could we find sources for that information? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Countryfile calendar
Would it be appropriate to add mention of the Countryfile calendar? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1993 CIN single?
Where does it say that I Wouldn't Normally Do This Kind of Thing was the official CIN single for 1993?--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ratings
There needs to be a section on this main page similar to the recent addition that the Comic Relief page has.--Cooly123 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Presenter change?
I reverted changes to the presenter of this as there was no reference supplied for this. If a reference could be supplied then re-add the information. Keith D (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just done the same thing, and I will reiterate that references should please be provided if the information is changed again. Aw16 (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Women in Prison
The charity Women in Prison should have its own wikipedia page. How to make this point to the right people? 81.155.219.250 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Pudsey is not a Sooty Look-a-Like
To claim that Pudsey is a look a like of Sooty is not only an unsourced opinion, but one that is not borne out by any comparison beyond colour. Kevin McE (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)