Template talk:BBC Local TV

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC This template 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 Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge 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.

Is this supposed to be current or past programming? The current London branding isn't here but London Plus is. MRSC 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm being a blind eye. It is there. However, some indication of past and current would help no end. MRSC 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a clear advantage to having this template in addition to the cats. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's easy to read
2. There's no article "BBC Local News" or similar to order
3. Categories are intrinsically hard to read. --Quentin Smith 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]