Talk:Top of the Pops

Top of the Pops was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Top of the Pops article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

BBC High‑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

High

This article has been rated as High-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.

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British / Episode coverage High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Infobox dates

At the moment there are two date ranges shown - one for the weekly series and one for the Christmas specials - but they are both labelled simply "Release". There used to be headings showing which was which, but these were removed, and when I tried reinstating them they were removed again, apparently because formatting them in that way doesn't conform to the Infobox standards. How can we resolve this? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that if anything more than a date is put in a date field, this gets flagged as an error and someone comes to "fix" the error. (The infobox isn't really designed to cope with two parallel "releases".) So I've tried to fix this by adding explanations to the "network" fields. Dr Greg talk 16:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail?

The subsection "Audio recordings of lost episodes" (in the Lost Episodes section) is both extremely lengthy and rather dubiously sourced. Should it be removed? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The show aired live on Thursday evenings" - wrong

This is not true - it was recorded on a Wednesday evening and shown on the next evening (Thursday). I know - I worked for the BBC in the 70s. Jaycey (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended it to request a citation. Masato.harada (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video not necessary to make assertion about length of another artist's performance

The length and date of a performance by the Undertones is confirmed by a video (and description) posted on YouTube. I now see later reference in the history of edits that YouTube video is not an accepted source. However, no source was necessary in this article to assert that Angelic's performance was 91 seconds and on 16 June 2000. Therefore my view is my amendment should be left as stands and I have not reverted it. For what it is worth there is video on YouTube that suggests the Angelic performance is roughly as short as stated, although the first second or so appears to be missing from the part shown in the YouTube video on the Angelic performance. The Undertones performance is featured in full on YouTube and therefore carries more verification than the unsourced Angelic claim. Both are now left unsourced in this article - although I pointed to the YouTube video in the edit summary, I didn't use it as a citation in the article - effectively it is public domain, available for checking should anyone wish to do so, and has confirmed what the TOTP magazine said so is unnecessary to be sourcing what is public knowledge due to copy existing in public that can be checked after my own checking today has verified the according to TOTP magazine is correct.

We don't need 'according to' weasel words and doubt creating over what I have now established, as far as we can reasonably do, the length and date of the performance as a fact. As far as I am to know, the date has been independently given by a collector posting the video of Undertones performance to YouTube. It will likely tally in with the chart appearance which can be confirmed on Official Charts website - we don't need to be doing all this investigative work when there is no reason to be doubting what is claimed to be the date of the programme on YouTube. I have no reasonable basis to doubt it is true and the Angelic performance did not require such efforts but it seems could just be stated in this article with no proof - I do not require any, as I am satisfied on both Undertones and Angelic that this article is factually accurate. The fact, if this is so, that YouTube video is not an accepted source therefore does not cause me to revert the edit I've made. aspaa (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]