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 articles
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
Removed chart as it is original research. The creator could simply be promoting his or her agenda with biased analysis. We don't know if his or her methodology is valid. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
219.78.87.240 (
talk)
08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You provided no explanation as to why the methodology is not valid, nor what "agenda" you think is being "promoted." Given that the creator
Briantist is still active on Wikipedia, why not ask them for their methodology before arbitrarily deleting something you don't like?
Nick Cooper (
talk)
15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Whatever the methodology it is original research which shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article. Maybe it would be more sensible if one wants to compare relative costs, to find some references to average monthly wages in the past.
195.194.15.1 (
talk)
13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
If the calculations are so simple, can you explain why the green line, which supposedly represents the 'licence split by C/BW' (here I assume C is colour and BW is Black and White), stretches back before the invention of the colour TV and converges on the radio licence line. Even in its own terms the graph is confusing.
193.105.48.21 (
talk)
10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Why not ask the editor who created the chart? That said, I suspect that in pre-Colour years that line is actually showing the split between radio & TV licences.
Nick Cooper (
talk)
14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not OR, it's all source from the BBC and TV Licensing site. The split line is Split C/BW or BW/radio. This is a calculation AA28*G28+(1-AA28)*F28. It splits when radio licence was abolished in 1970. It's not Original Research, it's DATA!
BRIANTIST (talk)16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Just to avoid any idea that there is any agenda here other than clear display of data about the subject, I have added the explanatory text: The computed split is the simple value for the total of the licences issued (at whatever price) divided by the number sold.. OR my donkey.
BRIANTIST (talk)17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
"The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 was introduced as a temporary measure, and required annual extensions by Parliament until replaced by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1924."
This is clearly untrue. The Wireless Telegraphy Act was still being extended annually into the 1940s, for example, schedule 1 of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act 1935. This ended with the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.
Mauls (
talk)
12:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)reply
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 articles
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
Removed chart as it is original research. The creator could simply be promoting his or her agenda with biased analysis. We don't know if his or her methodology is valid. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
219.78.87.240 (
talk)
08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
You provided no explanation as to why the methodology is not valid, nor what "agenda" you think is being "promoted." Given that the creator
Briantist is still active on Wikipedia, why not ask them for their methodology before arbitrarily deleting something you don't like?
Nick Cooper (
talk)
15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Whatever the methodology it is original research which shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article. Maybe it would be more sensible if one wants to compare relative costs, to find some references to average monthly wages in the past.
195.194.15.1 (
talk)
13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
If the calculations are so simple, can you explain why the green line, which supposedly represents the 'licence split by C/BW' (here I assume C is colour and BW is Black and White), stretches back before the invention of the colour TV and converges on the radio licence line. Even in its own terms the graph is confusing.
193.105.48.21 (
talk)
10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Why not ask the editor who created the chart? That said, I suspect that in pre-Colour years that line is actually showing the split between radio & TV licences.
Nick Cooper (
talk)
14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not OR, it's all source from the BBC and TV Licensing site. The split line is Split C/BW or BW/radio. This is a calculation AA28*G28+(1-AA28)*F28. It splits when radio licence was abolished in 1970. It's not Original Research, it's DATA!
BRIANTIST (talk)16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Just to avoid any idea that there is any agenda here other than clear display of data about the subject, I have added the explanatory text: The computed split is the simple value for the total of the licences issued (at whatever price) divided by the number sold.. OR my donkey.
BRIANTIST (talk)17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
"The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 was introduced as a temporary measure, and required annual extensions by Parliament until replaced by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1924."
This is clearly untrue. The Wireless Telegraphy Act was still being extended annually into the 1940s, for example, schedule 1 of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act 1935. This ended with the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.
Mauls (
talk)
12:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)reply