![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
Removed "former programmes" which were never on R4:
-- Picapica 22:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
These hosts were from the other article:
Can someone please classify them into the appropriate host categories? Thank you. MessedRocker 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
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.
4 | This user thinks BBC Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone. |
{{ User:UBX/Radio4}}. Joe D (t) 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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).
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).
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.
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 find the time-signal is seldom played over programmes.
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)
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.
the midweek link is linked to the midweek magazing, can someone change this? i need to be off so i cant do it myself.
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
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)
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)
Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:26, 28 August 2015 (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:
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
The BBC long-wave a.m. transmitter network carries a low bit-rate data signal, in addition to the normal programme signal modulation. The data signal is conveyed by phase-modulation of the carrier
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
Removed "former programmes" which were never on R4:
-- Picapica 22:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
These hosts were from the other article:
Can someone please classify them into the appropriate host categories? Thank you. MessedRocker 05:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
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.
4 | This user thinks BBC Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone. |
{{ User:UBX/Radio4}}. Joe D (t) 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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).
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).
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.
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 find the time-signal is seldom played over programmes.
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)
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.
the midweek link is linked to the midweek magazing, can someone change this? i need to be off so i cant do it myself.
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
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)
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)
Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:26, 28 August 2015 (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:
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
The BBC long-wave a.m. transmitter network carries a low bit-rate data signal, in addition to the normal programme signal modulation. The data signal is conveyed by phase-modulation of the carrier
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)
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)
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)