Talk:BBC Radio 4

Merge from BBC Home Service

I suggest that the stub article BBC Home Service be merged into the History section of BBC Radio 4 as that article provides plenty of information already and will be the name that first comes to mind for the majority of people today. BBC_Radio_Four#History Davidkinnen 18:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note that this merge has been undone, and a new, fully researched history of the Home Service can now be found at BBC Home Service. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Today

The Today Programme, or just Today...?

Its official title is clearly Today, but "The Today programme" (with or without a capital P) is obviously very widespread, and is a natural disambiguation.

I only ask this because I have an article in the works. --rbrwr

Radio 4 website lists it as the Today programme in the A-Z list of programmes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/atoz/ ) but the website for the programme itself is called Today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/ ) but if you look at the scrolling text it calls it the Today programme.

Right. Also... the listings call it Today. On air they usually say "You're listening to Today on Radio 4 with John Humphrys and James Naughtie" (or whoever). --rbrwr

I think that if "The Today Programme" was its official title, it wouldn't get called "Today". Does "The Food Programme" get called "Food"? But with "Today" as its official title, it has to be called "the Today programme" from time to time to avoid ambiguity. Does that make sense?

I think that I will change this page to say "Today", but put my article at "The Today programme" on the grounds that "Today" will end up as a disambiguation page sooner or later - there has been at least one newspaper of that title which might be written about. Any objections? --rbrwr

Is it not "Today Programme" to distinguish it from "today" as in "this day"

Patrick Muirhead

If anyone is wondering what happened to Patrick Muirhead he is apparantly now working as a painter and decorator! - [1] Jooler 19:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was - but according to the Mail on Sunday interview with him this weekend, he now runs his own gentlemen's outfitters in West Sussex [2] Stephenb (Talk) 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sitcoms?

Would one refer to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as a sitcom? I would happily argue not, as it had an over-arching plot and not the fundamental many-episodes-set-in-the-same-(or a similar)-place structure of the sitcom. Indeed Nebulous is far more of a sitcom than H2G2.

I though I would post here prior to changing it, to allow the person who made the change to convice me otherwise :). --Neo 12:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...It's not exactly a sitcom, but then it's not a comedy drama either. "Comedy serials"? I've not heard Nebulous, so I don't know whether that would fit in such a category. sjorford →•← 13:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Removed "former programmes" which were never on R4:

The Goon Show (Home Service)

Journey into Space (Light Programme)

-- Picapica 22:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Listen Again

The article says that RealPlayer is "required", but that's not the case. I use Real Alternative instead, and I would imagine that any other players which can play RealPlayer files would work too.

I'm not sure how to reword it though, especially since I don't know what other players would work and I don't want to just advertise Real Alternative. Any ideas? MyNameIsClare talk 15:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just don't mention it. Or do it. Mentioning Real Player but not Real Alternative would just be weird. Ran4 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hosts that need to be classifed

These hosts were from the other article:

• Lionel Marson
• Ronald Fletcher
• Wallace Greenslade
• Stuart Hibberd
• Frank Phillips
• Joy Worth
• Colin Doran
• Kenneth Kendall
• Harry Middleton

Can someone please classify them into the appropriate host categories? Thank you. MessedRocker 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rule Britannia

Does Rule Britannia now end the day on Radio 4? I always thought it was the National Anthem... didn't want to change this unless I was wrong having not listened to R4 at 1am for a while. FB 2000 20:14 BST 19 August 05

You are correct, is is the National Anthem (listened last night) and hasn't changed.

Userbox fans

4This user thinks BBC Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone.

{{User:UBX/Radio4}}. Joe D (t) 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Audience noises

Anybody know which, if any, of the comedy and quiz shows have real audience noises, not canned noises? Laurel Bush 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

All of them, so far as I'm aware - the BBC records all shows with a live audience - unless the show explicitly makes a joke using canned laughter. Tickets to all BBC shows are free[3]. Why do you think otherwise? Stephenb (Talk) 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Few performers make specific references to the audience. (Exceptions include performers in "Sorry I havent a clue".) And noises in some shows do sound very canned/forced. Laurel Bush 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
I have just taken this: Many comedy TV and radio shows are recorded in front of a live audience - and getting free tickets to be there is really easy! from the external link provide above. Suggests to me that audience noises for many shows are canned. Laurel Bush 17:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

Huh? That says just the opposite! "Canned" laughter is when a show takes pre-recorded laughter, rather than from a live audience. The sentence you quote says that many are recorded with a live audience! It does imply that some shows are not recorded in front of a live audience, but then we know that anyway - and that doesn't mean they use canned laughter, they may simply not have (or need) any audience or "audience noise" at all. Stephenb (Talk) 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe that the audiences are actually real. Take "Just a Minute" as an example. This show thrives on the audience's precense when for example one of the panel may be booed for challenging with only 1 second left etc.

Yes. 'Just a Minute' is a good example of a programme in which audience noises and performer-audience interactions seem to be very real. I sometimes have my doubts about 'The News Quiz' and 'The Now Show'. Laurel Bush.

I've been in the audience for one of those (Now Show) and a friend in the audience for the other. Tickets for both are particularly popular, I understand. The Now Show did once record without an audience - I think there was a bomb threat or something - but they told us that at the start of the show. I'm afraid your doubts are simply unfounded. Stephenb (Talk) 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Now Show had no audience on the broadcast of 8th July 2005 - as it's recorded the previous day and none of the audience could get to Drill Hall in time for the recording due to the transport chaos following the terrorist attacks. Tomcakes 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and (for the record here) they told the listeners that, and there was no canned laughter in the show. Stephenb (Talk) 11:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Maybe it's strange, peculiar London audiences I've been hearing. Laurel Bush 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Laurel i know what you mean it's the way the laughter ends all at the same time and sometimes abruptly. However I think that this might be a case of sound mixing. I imagine that the audience and panel all have different mics (i'm talking about the News Quiz) which are mixed together by an engineer. its possible that the feed from the audience is faded out prematurely so as not to compete with the the feed from the panel as they begin speaking again towards the end of a bout of laughter. This results in nice clear dialogue from the panel but makes the laughter sound canned. This is purely me hypothesising and it would be great if someone from the BBC could comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.40.243 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not BBC but I've been to Radio 4 recordings from 1993 onwards. In the BBC Radio Theatre there are about a dozen microphones above the audience but how the sound is edited will vary between productions. Just a Minute seems to be a very tight operation, with very little discarded. In the News Quiz there is more rambling so contributions may need to be tightened up by removing parts of sentences, which might make the changes in laughter sound a bit abrupt. The experts on Museum of Curiosity aren't always experienced on radio, so those recordings are relatively long (e.g. 100 minutes recorded for 27 minutes broadcast). The chair's stance is part of the mix: Nicholas Parsons is very effective at the brisk end, with Sandi Toksvig, Peter Day, Peter White, Barry Took &co being more leisured, while John Lloyd – probably a pretty muscular thinker in reality – is patience personified. Another factor is that in an intimate space like the Radio Theatre (about 300 seats) the audience doesn't behave naturally: if a panelist is about to make a funny comment people stop laughing so they can listen; when a joke is disappointing people seem to laugh anyway – maybe to encourage its perpetrator to do better? - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

GTS

I find the time-signal is seldom played over programmes.

With Sky digital can someone confirm my findings of the GTS accurate to within one second of FM being broadcast?

The FM and LW time signals are very accurate - the BBC take into account the speed of light and broadcast it very slightly early so that in Central London it's "right". Alas, with digital broadcasting they can't be so accurate - the encoding and decoding takes time - and the BBC can't know how long it will take your receiver to decode the signal. For DAB radio, the delay is 384ms (for encoding) plus however long your receiver takes to decode (typically tens of milliseconds). For SKY or Freesat there's also the satellite delay, the total delay is estimated as being between 900 and 2000mS. Apepper (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The time signal broadcast by the BBC isn't the Greenwich Time Signal anymore; the BBC generate their own signal and it's referred to as the "Time Signal" or pips. Greenwich is not mentioned.

Apepper 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Greenwich from the time signal description - no-one's objected to the above comment in over two years! Apepper (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sport

You could have fooled me that sport wasn't in R4's remit. It is in many news-bulletins and is prominent in Today. Radio Five now has two outlets yet sport still lingers on what would otherwise be a fine station.

midweek

the midweek link is linked to the midweek magazing, can someone change this? i need to be off so i cant do it myself.

Done. The magazine was the only article regarding Midweek, so I have created a link where anyone can create an article on the Midweek radio show. Well spotted by the way. Sonic 20:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Equivalents?

Wikipedia has loads of lists of radio stations, but it doesn't appear that individual stations are being particularly well interlinked. this article has "see also" links, but none to individual radio stations. does anyone know of any similar stations? user: amoammo

Found one, added it. user: amoammo

ABC Radio National and Radio New Zealand National come to mind. matturn 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar stations in northern Europe include: DR P1, Denmark, Sveriges Radio P1, Sweden, and WDR 5, Germany. -- Picapica (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Programmes

I've moved the programmes to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes as the list was just getting ridiculously long! Stephenb (Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scheudule

Sorry, but scheudles are not allowed. "an article on a radio station generally should not list ... schedules" WP:NOT#DIR ••Briantist•• talk 13:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping we wouldn't need a debate on this, but OK, here goes:

What I have put together for this page is an illustration (see right) of what a typical weekday schedule looks like on Radio 4. With a radio station of the variety and breadth of R4, one of the important considerations in an article such as this one is to illustrate that breadth, and to give and indication of what makes R4 special. That is what I was aiming at here.

There are several questions which really need to be answered:

• Is this a radio schedule? User:Briantist correctly points out that current editorial guidelines say that "an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc." So, firstly, does this graphic constitute "schedules" in this sense? My interpretation of "schedules" in the context of this paragraph ("Wikipedia is not a directory: Wikipedia articles are not ... Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides") is much more of a list of programme names, times and descriptions, such as this Radio 4 page, giving the reader an indication of exactly what is going to be on on a particular day. This is, indeed, not really what Wikipedia is about, in my opinion, as i) the information at this level of detail is better suited somewhere else, ii) it would need constant attention and updating and iii) it would rapidly become out of date, working against the idea that a Wikipedia 'snapshot' would contain something of lasting use. However, what I am putting up here is not a "schedule" in this sense: it is not a schedule for a particular day, just a generic Monday outline. It lists programme names only where the programmes are a permanent fixture on that day (such as Today, Woman's Hour, etc.) and simply names genres of programme (such as "Features", "Comedy") where the actual programme in this slot changes over periods of weeks, rather than years. Furthermore, no critical analysis, description or advertising is listed for any programme. This is not really a radio "schedule" in the context meant in WP:NOT#DIR.

• Is there copyright in this graphic? As with many questions of coyright, this breaks down into two parts, "Is there copyright in the information?" and "Is there copyright in the presentation?"
  • Is there copyright in the information? The information from which this graphic is constructed is small and clearly limited, specifically: the names of R4 programmes which are permanent fixtures, the categories of the slots containing programmes which change from time to time, the times of each programme slot and the genre of each programme. I have no reason to believe that simply dates and times for a generic day (not even a specific date) can be claimed as copyright, and in the unlikely event that this is tried, this application can clearly be argued as fair use. Lastly, this graphic was inspired by the BBC's own report on Radio 4 as submitted to the UK Government as part of the charter renewal consultation, and available on that website, and on which no copyright is claimed at all.
  • Is there copyright in the presentation? Yes, the graphic itself is copyright, as it constitutes an artistic work. It (and the code necessary to reproduce it) is properly licensed under a Collective Commons license.

• Is it a useful contribution to this article? I would suggest that the use of a graphic such as this to attempt to convey the 'shape' of a R4 day is extremely helpful to the reader. It illustrates the breadth of the station, and gives a good indication of something of its character. Similarly, a graphic illustrating the week's 'shape', such as this one, is an extremely good way to illustrate the 'stranding' so loved by James Boyle and which caused so much controversy when it was introduced. Finally, if this page is to become a good article some helpful images are an exremely good idea, and radio doesn't lend itself terribly well to that.

Overall, this graphic contributes a lot to this page, and I will be reinstating it.

TimR 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the original person who made the suggestion that schedules should not be incorporated into articles and added that into WP:NOT#DIR. I agree with your argument that a "generic schedule" with historical importance may be fine (as with the United States television schedules, such as 2006-07 United States network television schedule), but current schedules do have the problem that they can become out of date quite quickly and that TV Guides are better placed to take the role of hosting current schedules.

Copyright however, is an issue with current schedules, as editors can and do just copy and paste schedules from a website into Wikipedia and this is where the issue lies, though for BBC One, BBC Two, ITV1/STV/UTV/GMTV and Channel 4 schedules, Broadcasting Dataservices hold the copyright for those schedules under the 1990 Broadcasting Act. The other thing to be aware of is that schedules can also be seen as original research if they are not attributable to a reliable source.

Don't forget Channel TV ;-) matturn 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that there should be a genuine reason for schedules to be placed in articles, feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not. Until then, I fear this "schedule" will continue to be removed.

Nice work by the way. --tgheretford (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Radio 4 FM and LW

It appears that there has always been programming differences between these two sub-networks. Originally, the FM network's variations were material of lesser importance than the then primary LW network, but then after more FM transmitters were installed and the original Radio 5 launched, the inverse became the case. I don't know the details, but I think this is important enough to be mentioned prominently. The so called "Scud FM" was less of a separate station as some current Wikipedia references suggest, and more just Radio 4 FM during the Gulf War - the period of greatest difference between the two versions of the station. matturn 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

A suggestion from me would be to put the current controller of each BBC department into the summary BBC departmental pages(the little box in the overview). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.106.2 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a newbie contributor to wikipedia and was wondering if my edit seemed reasonable.

removed ref. to accusations of self-censorship. the linked article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=476626&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322

alleges such on BBC_TV_ not BBC Radio 4.The _Public_Forum responses allege Radio 4 self censorship.

Public forums are not a good source for a wikipedia article.

The closest the article comes to referring to BBC Radio 4 is the following: "The BBC groupthink permeates its entire output, from its news bulletins, through drama and even the website." That doesn't count as a criticism of BBC Radio 4, I would say.

thanks in advance

Japanscot (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a criticism! It's hardly praise; nor neutral is it?! your user account doesn't appear to exist btw, are you a real user?!

That whole section is problematic, I think - the accusations of bias pretty much all come from notably right-wing sources. Not quite sure what to do about it tho, apart from maybe not using Feedback as a reference there since that programme is, in effect, also a public forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.100.168 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"notably right wing sources"?! Which ones? And "right-wing" relative to what? I would say that the BBC is "far left" from my centrist position.

I was wondering weather it was worth metioning the supposed "middle class bias". I mean it comes up alot in the news quiz and the now show and also what abou the idea of it being rather londoncentric although this may be a wider critique of the bbc in general (BTW im a Londoner).

The sources quoted are problematic for the following reasons. 1. They are right-wing; The Sun, Telegraph, and The Times. Relative to the "general centre", all of these sources are right-wing. 2. Two of these newspaper, The Sun and The Times, are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch competes with the BBC, with his populist Sky TV. I'm not sure that his papers are likely to pass impartial judgement. The BBC is pretty moderate. Notice how uncritical it has been of the COnDem coalition. Accusations of bias tend to come from palaeo or social conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.148.64 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The idiots on Muropedia don't much like criticism of Murdoch. Beware. His empire grows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.148.64 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Perhaps you could make fleeting reference to "...the Rupert Murdoch-owned papers..." and allow readers to form their own conclusions without sounding biased yourself. I agree with your sentiments, but the statements as they were worded were blatantly not neutral! Radiopathy •talk• 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Desert Island Discs castaways - nominated for deletion

The category Desert Island Discs castaways has been nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Something I wish to praise the article for

I am so glad that the list of newsreaders makes it easy to find "Former staff" and then gives us the name of Charlotte Green and Harriet Cass. These two newsreaders were two of the most famous newsreaders on Radio Four, and I am sure that (after leaving in 2013) many Radio Four listeners have missed these two. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, could the list that says "Continuity announcers/Newsreaders" more clearly clarify which of them are newsreaders and which are continuity announcers?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Staff members

An I.P. keeps adding names of non-notable people to the list after I removed them. The names do not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE as they are not notable. Just because that person thinks that they are notable, doesn't mean they are. Also, the IP isn't providing reliable sources to back it up, so there is no point in keeping them. The people listed should have a Wikipedia article in order to be listed and if not, they better have a reliable source. That being said, it cannot bei the url from the station's website as that is a primary source. It needs to be third-party sources. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference to announcers have been present on this page for nearly a decade; Wikipedia has proved a useful source in finding out about current and past announcers as there is no other source on the web that provides this. With Primary sources banned (i.e. BBC), the list now looks half-complete as announcers without 3rd party websites are unable to be included. Such a mass wipe out comes across as perfunctory rather than informed when other contributors have taken time to carry out any wider-research. Various members and IPs have contributed to the page over the past decade and it feels as though their work has been obliterated simply because certain announcers don't have their own page. 17:19, 24 December 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.152.79 (talk)

The problem with sources being the journalists' own webpage is we don't know who created it (It may have been the journalist, but anyone can create them). Third-party sources should be from newspapers, news station articles, etc. Not just one, but multiple sources citing them. If they are going to be on Wikipedia, they need to follow the guidelines set up for Wikipedia, not what one thinks is right. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, although we've both broken it already. Users have been blocked before because of this. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC Radio 4. 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/20141006185743/http://www.radioawards.org/winners04/win04.htm to http://www.radioawards.org/winners04/win04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140327094112/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

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} 23:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Longwave time signal

Draft, under revision. Assign colours to the various fields, pick an illustrative example date, compute CRC for it, ... 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The 198 kHz longwave signal is phase modulated by ±22.5° to provide a a 25 bit/s data channel. The data is Manchester coded to eliminate DC bias and transmitted at 50 baud, where a phase advance followed by retardation indicates a 1 bit.

50 bits beginning on an even UTC second comprise a frame. A frame consists of a start bit (always 1), four frame type bits (all-zero for time frames), 32 message bits, and 13 bits of cyclic redundancy check. Thirty frames are sent each UTC minute, and the last one (during seconds 58 and 59 of the minute) is a time frame (with a frame type of 0) encoding the immediately following minute.

A time frame looks like:

BBC long-wave time code

First second					Second second
Bit	Weight	Meaning	Ex		Bit	Weight	Meaning	Ex
:58.00	P	Start bit, always 1	1		:59.00	32	Minute (00–59) Example: 30	0
:58.04	8	Frame type (0–15) Example: 0 = time frame	0		:59.04	16		1
:58.08	4		0		:59.08	8		1
:58.12	2		0		:59.12	4		1
:58.16	1		0		:59.16	2		1
:58.20	0	Always 0	0		:59.20	1		0
:58.24	2	Leap year cycle (0–3) Example: 0	0		:59.24	±	Local offset (±15.5) Example: +1	0
:58.28	1		0		:59.28	8		0
:58.32	4	Start day (1–7) Example: 2 = Tuesday	0		:59.32	4		0
:58.36	2		1		:59.36	2		0
:58.40	1		0		:59.40	1		1
:58.44	32	Week number (1–53) Example: 27	0		:59.44	½		0
:58.48	16		1		:59.48	x12	CRC Example: 1010101010101	1
:58.52	8		1		:59.52	x11		1
:58.56	4		0		:59.56	x10		1
:58.60	2		1		:59.60	x9		1
:58.64	1		1		:59.64	x8		1
:58.68	4	Day of week (1–7) Example: 4 = Thursday	1		:59.68	x7		1
:58.72	2		0		:59.72	x6		1
:58.76	1		0		:59.76	x5		1
:58.80	16	Hour (0–23) Example: 17	1		:59.80	x4		1
:58.84	8		0		:59.84	x3		1
:58.88	4		0		:59.88	x2		1
:58.92	2		0		:59.92	x1		1
:58.96	1		1		:59.96	x0		1

The time code does not encode the year, but only the time and day within the year.

The day is transmitted as the ISO week date, giving the week number and day within the week. The leap year cycle and start day information is provided to allow this to be translated to month and day.

The leap year cycle bits identify leap years. Normally, they encode the low two bits of the year number (the year number modulo 4), but the values 3, 0, and 1 indicate that the following, current, or previous year is a leap year. The value 2 indicates that a leap year is at least two years away. Thus, that value will be transmitted from 2098 through 2102, as the year 2100 is not a leap year.

The start day is the day-of-week of January 1 (or January 8) of the current year. Note that it is not always transmitted on January 1, as the ISO week-numbering year does not always correspond to the Gregorian year for days near the new year. For example, 3 January 2010 was considered part of wee 53 of the year 2009.

The time transmitted is always UTC. The local offset indicates the offset to local time. It is always either 0 (standard time) or +1 (British Summer Time). There is no warning of impending summer time changes.

References

Second most popular station in the United Kingdom

When this says "It (Radio Four) is the second most popular domestic radio station in the U.K." should there not be a tag saying "citation needed"? And would it not be more informative to say "after Radio Two"?Vorbee (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Station reach // unexpected interference at 1200km distance?

Today at about 19:00 CET the "BBC R4" interfered with the reception of an FM station on my radio at 92.6MHz... the problem is that the location of my car and car radio was about 1260km east of London. I thought FM stations could not reach this far; I believe the BBC R4 was at 92.5MHz, where is it located?

Why did this happen? Solar wind? Sun position? This is way beyond line of sight, plus the terrain... it took 5-10 minutes to establish a very strong interference, to the point when I could tune the frequency right and get stereo reception. There was a time signal, so I guess that was at 19:00 local time. (18:00 in the UK, I guess). At 19:50 the interference was gone...

I wouldn't loike to this to happen again... I would report this curiosity to the BBC R4 directly, but they don't have open contacts :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.43.195 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Gwyneth Williams' successor has been announced

I have heard on the news tonight (Tuesday July 9 2019) that the new controller of Radio Four has now been announced. I can't remember the name, but if any one can, s/he could put the name of Gwyneth Williams' successor-to-be in the article to up-date the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Rillington (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I updated the station controller in the article introduction. Lammbda (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)