Talk:Round the Horne

Round the Horne is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 14, 2019	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 27, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed
April 11, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

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:

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.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

More edit warring[edit]

Drfrench, what the hell are you doing with the continued edit warring and not bothering to discuss things on the talk page? Your last edit summary of "fix formatting" fools no-one. It is a revert, so please be honest in your summaries in future, even if you are trying to avoid accusations of breaching the blue line of WP:3RR. You've been asked several times to DISCUSS rather than edit war, and I can't understand why you are not able to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DrFrench, your version does not seem to be an improvement. Please explain what you are trying to do, and why you think it is better than the previous version. If you continue to WP:EDIT WAR, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding[edit]

@Tim riley: Taking this to the talk page as requested. Can you explain why MOS:BOLDREDIRECT does not apply here? The redirects in question are Dobbiroids, Binkie Huckaback, and Dame Celia Molestrangler. Tevildo (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread the MoS guideline. The redirects are not from this page, but to it. Bolding here is unhelpful and pointless. Tim riley talk 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be little point bolding an outgoing redirect link. See also MOS:B - "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" [emphasis added]. The bolding is consistent with the MOS. If there's a reason that the MOS doesn't apply here, please share it. Otherwise, the MOS prescribes that the terms should be bolded. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of us misunderstands the MoS guideline about what is commonly (not compulsorily) bolded. I'd be glad of advice from my co-author of the FA text, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with the redirects? They seem rather pointless to me, given the dozens (hundreds?) of character names used. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. And on top of that, for every one editor who puts Dobbiroids into the search engine there will surely be many more who would open the main article and wonder why on earth Dobbiroids is in unexplained bold type. As the MoS does not make it mandatory to embolden terms to which a redirect points I think we should refrain from doing so here, as simply unhelpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 22:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this discussion can stand as the reason for non-compliance, I won't labour the point. A similar argument could be made for restoring the capitals to Director-General, but, as they say, I don't have a dog in that fight. Perhaps adding a comment to the text to deter any future editors who want to follow the MOS might be an idea. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time in a few days I have had the pleasure of thanking an editor whose views were the opposite of mine for his or her magnanimity in letting my view stand. That sort of thing doesn't happen very often and I thank you, Tevildo, Tim riley talk 23:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! We followed the process and we reached a resolution without resorting to personal abuse, which, I agree, is far too common these days. I'm still right, of course. 😺 Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]