Talk:Broadcast (magazine)

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Deletion?

First of, I couldn't find this article's entry on the Redirects for deletion page. Secondly, this article should be kept: it's a worthwhile stub, and as such deserves its place in Wikipedia. --Maikel 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it either. Everyone calls the magazine BROADCAST - it's written in big letters on the front page. And it's one of the most respected broadcast magazines in the UK. If no one objects within a week or two, I'm planning to edit the page to remove the notice. Stephen B Streater 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the title is spelled in capitals on the magazine's front page, it is being referred to simply as Broadcast on the website. It would be great if you could fatten up the article a bit. Maikel 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Broadcast doesn't seem to be a magazine, I propose that this article be moved to Broadcast (periodical) or Broadcast (newspaper). Maikel 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier with Broadcast (periodical) as it is on glossy paper. Stephen B Streater 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On examination, Broadcast claims to be a magazine, so I'd rather leave this at the moment (and I changed it in the article). Clearly it looks more like a newspaper, but then the Economist looks like a magazine and is in fact a newspaper. And Jaffa cakes look like biscuits, but are in fact cakes - apparently the House of Lords ruled that biscuits start hard and go soft when they go stale, and cakes start soft and go hard when they go stale, so Jaffa cakes were in fact legally cakes. I've also added a bit more content. Stephen B Streater 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info (I think). ;-)

PS: I would have loved to have attended that House of Lords meeting ... Maikel 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Popular Factual Program results clearly incorrect

This article on Mud Men states

The first 8 x 60-minute series was History’s highest rating UK commission, drawing an average of 63,300 (0.25%) viewers, and was highly commended at the Broadcast Digital Awards earlier this month.

An alternate source here backs this up.

A shortlist for the category happens to be listed in this non-exhaustive article:

The fight for the Best Popular Factual Programme award will be between BBC3’s Junior Doctors: Your Life In Their Hands, ITV4’s Freddie Flintoff Vs The World, Mud Men for AETN, Pineapple Dance Studios for Sky 1, Spirit Of The 1940s for UKTV and Discovery Communications’ Stephen Hawking’s Universe.

This is salient because Mud Men was recently WP:PROP'd. From what I can gather from looking at award listings for other years, Highly Commended is not the same as winning the category, and I've found some sources misinterpreting this such as Qwitwa (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]