Jump to content

Talk:BBC Radio 6 Music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge?

[edit]

This needs to be merged with 6 Music... which is the better title? Most BBC stations are at [[BBC Whatever]] --rbrwr

Oops, I should have done a search before doing this one, though the title of this one makes more sense and has more info on it... --Steinsky

OK, I went with this one, and merged a couple of bits from 6 Music into it. --rbrwr

Someone put the current schedule rather than just presenters/shows

[edit]

I am not sure the listing of current shows by times is a good idea for an encyclopedia. I think it is better left to an external link to BBC 6 Music. Just having what was there, a list of presenters and shows and past shows and presenters I think is appropriate. -- Wikiklrsc 19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that with some suprise. I wold have thought WP:ISNOT a listings magazine. It would be great if we had a database which enabled us to find out what was on Radio 4 on 12 October 1955 (The Dreaded Batter-Pudding Hurler of Bexhill-on-Sea), but that is currently unfeasible. I would suggest that if these schedules become significantly out of date, they are removed (or updated if someone can be bothered), otherwise they can be left. Rich Farmbrough 22:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this very point on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and TV/Radio schedules are now covered under section 1.7.7. I had to delete the schedules from the ITV Play article for that reason. It would be better to restore the presenters/shows as before. Sonic 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a lot to change. Whoever added the original schedules, added them to most BBC Radio articles (Radio 1, Radio 5, etc.). It was 15:17, 11 November 2005 by 217.33.74.20. --- 17:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When will the warning be lifted or resolved ? It just can't stay there forever ! --- 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sixmusic.gif

[edit]

Image:Sixmusic.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name?

[edit]

As far as I know, there is no plan to add the word "radio" to the name. Unless anybody knows otherwise, I think we should rename the article to use the correct name of the station, i.e. "BBC 6 Music". Any comments? --DanielRigal 17:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, until the BBC does actually change the name of the station, the article should reflect the current name. quack 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got misnamed again so I put it back again. It seems that the station name is actually "6 Music" not "BBC 6 Music" so it is not hard to see why confusion arises. particularly with the current logo. Maybe all the BBC Radio articles would be better off as "<name> (BBC radio)" e.g. "6 Music (BBC Radio)". What does everybody think? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The BBC Radio website lists BBC 6 Music as BBC 6 Music, not 6 Music. We need to keep the official title of the station as given by the BBC, as per WP:NAME. I placed a notice about the title of the article at the top of the page to encourage people tempted to move the article again to discuss any changes before implementing them. --tgheretford (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/) and on the scrolling station identifier on digital radio the station's name is now given as BBC Radio 6Music. I think the title of this article should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of this week the station now announces itself on air as “BBC Radio 6 Music”. In the past is has been very consistently “BBC 6 Music”.
A BBC press release from 17 March 2011 consistently uses “BBC Radio 6 Music” and “6 Music”, and not “BBC 6 Music”. A 1 April 2011 press release uses “BBC 6 Music” (only once).
The 6 Music website is titled “6music” on the new front page; it uses “BBC Radio 6 Music” on newer programme descriptions [1][2]; it's titled “BBC 6 Music” on older pages. The BBC Programmes infrastructure uses “BBC 6 Music”.
5 live uses “BBC Radio 5 live”, “BBC 5 live” and “5 live” interchangeably. 1Xtra uses “Radio” some of the time, like 5 live; BBC Programmes calls it “BBC 1Xtra”. Neither the Asian Network nor the World Service use “Radio”; both have a definite article. Radio 7 got a press release when it added “Radio”; Sports Extra and 1Xtra didn't; 6 Music hasn't had one yet.
Radcliffe and Maconie call it “6 Records”; they're alone in that respect.
Since supporting media isn't consistent, I suggest we go with the on-air branding, which uses “BBC Radio 6 Music” (and “6 Music” for short). --Gregknicholson (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritical tone

[edit]

This article reads as though it has been written by the BBC Press Office. Despite mentioning several phone-in scandals (these could hardly be omitted) it is completely uncritical. In particular it lacks information about the controversial recent relaunch and repositioning, which has attracted howls of protest from listeners. I suspect an analysis of the edit history will find quite a few BBC IP addresses. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree, the article is ghastly. I've made some minor changes.Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wee bit about the George Lamb thing but it could do with expanding, I'd think - g

Yes 6 music does seem to like to self-promote quite alot & it's controller's do seem to like to homogenise itself with BBC Radio 1 / Radio 2 & other commercial radio stations as much as it can possibly get away with (at odd's with it's spirit), instead of following it's service guidelines of promoting non-mainstream music / artists & also giving former popular artists a platform who don't get radio airplay any more.(on the alternative side I would have thought, though the remit is a bit vague as regards that matter)--Scratchy7929 09:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Campaign against closure

[edit]

Bearing in mind the discussion above about "uncritical tone" I modified the reference to public support for 6 Music from a Facebook group to a media report in order to make the article more like a neutral encyclopaedia article, and less like a rallying point for campaigners. The Facebook group reference still appears under external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very act of creating a sub-heading about a rumour has turned part of the article into a rallying point for campaigners (probably the intention for creating it). It also fails to acknowledge that the future of the station isn't reducible to a binary choice of the status quo, or closing the station.
Haskanik (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reflect this argument, and the Recentism tag, Should the sub-heading be removed and the "Rumours of closure" section be shortened to:
In February 2010, in anticipation of a review by the BBC Trust, rumours were reported that 6 Music might be axed.[25] The review stopped short of recommending closure but suggested that only one in five UK residents were aware the station existed, and that it lacked presenters with credibility as music experts.[26] The Times subsequently claimed that Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, proposed closure as part of a bid to scale back BBC operations and allow commercial rivals more room. [27] A high profile campaign to oppose closure of the station attracted media attention and led to "#SaveBBC6Music" quickly becoming a trending topic on Twitter. [28] In the Guardian, BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Chris Addison was quoted as saying: "6 Music serves a minority interest, does it? Then it's heartland BBC. Leave it a-fucking-lone".[29] Ed Vaizey, shadow culture minister, implied that closure of 6 Music would be "intelligent and sensible".[30] Clive Dickens, chief operating officer of Absolute Radio, said that his company would be interested in buying 6 Music and could run it more efficiently than the BBC.[31]
then seek consensus for keeping this edit until the rumours are confirmed, denied or otherwise modified? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think every rumour should beget a main sub-heading. The suggested cut-down text, or something similar, could be put under Press coverage (as its focus is quotes to the press, and suchlike) and the Recentism tag disposed of.
Haskanik (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

[edit]

The article contained such gems as "There is a lot of cooperation with the audience, using the World Wide Web, text messaging and emails . Listeners can in vivo decide which songs will be played. Listeners can also use the website to listen again to a show, post feedback to their message boards, find out more about the playlists and presenters and hear breaking music news.

Being able to text or e-mail the station doesn't amount to it offering "a lot of cooperation with the audience".

"Listeners can also use the website to listen again to a show, post feedback to their message boards, find out more about the playlists and presenters and hear breaking music news."

How is this noteworthy? Many, if not most, stations offer this.

If there are playlists, how can "Listeners can in vivo decide which songs will be played"?

"At launch the presenters were regarded as experts in their field."

Hi Haskanik Your edit certainly improves some sections but the amount of material you've removed - including well sourced citations - doesn't seem cooperative to me, especially without discussion. Expressing issues of fact more clearly would benefit the article, but wholesale deletion of whatever you find irrelevant feels arbitrary to me. Despite its original weakness I feel that overall the article would be stronger if your changes were reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was more or less unreadable.
I'm sure it will be again.
The only question is when.
The current edit is the "Prague Spring" version of the page, before the BBC Press Office, and its fellow travellers, roll their tanks in.
Haskanik (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to a campaign to save 6 Music was noteworthy, factual, perfectly readable and included a reliable citation to the Guardian. You deleted this and the external link to a Facebook support group, editting out at least three other editors' contributions. The only tank being driven through the article is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia aren't much use if ordinary people can't read them.
Of course, anyone can put the Guardian link back in. That said, it's probably not necessary or helpful to dwell on, or link to, every news outlet that mentioned the possible closure of 6 Music. This is supposed to be Wikipedia, not Wikinews, 'Wikilinks', or 'Wikicampaign'.
But it's quite likely that will be forgotten very quickly.
Haskanik (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The reference to a campaign to save 6 Music was noteworthy, factual, perfectly readable and included a reliable citation to the Guardian."
At the time of writing, the reference added by User: Alistair Stevenson states: "A high profile campaign to oppose closure of the station attracted media attention and led to '#SaveBBC6Music' quickly becoming a trending topic on Twitter.[24]"
However, the linked Guardian article doesn't support the assertion - the hashtag mentioned doesn't appear in it.
A link was (re-)added to a Facebook group. Links to social networking sites are listed number 10 in Wikipedia:ELNO
Haskanik (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've supplied a better reference. As the rumours of closure are such a significant development in the station's history and since they've attracted so much public attention, I think they warrant a sub-heading separate from "Press Coverage" Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist Comparison OR?

[edit]

The OR tag in the introductory section comes with the following explanation: "why=the cites demonstrate only that 1 and 6 both have playlists, the comparison is OR systensis|date=November 2010". This is alongside two citations to the radio 1 playlist and the 6 music playlist. I could remove the radio 1 citation and simply change the article to state "It operates a playlist based on an A/B/C structure", but to my mind, that is less informative, while the suggestion of OR is extremely pedantic. Plus, I'm not convinced that "systensis" is actually a word! With the above in mind, I'm making an initial edit to remove the OR tag, however I'm open to discussion on the subject. GGdown (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name.

[edit]

The article has been moved back and forward a couple of times now, without discussion.

Can we establish consensus on whether we should be titled "BBC 6 Music" or "BBC Radio 6 Music" please?

For my tu'pennth's worth, it seems to me that the BBC are now regularly referring to the station as "Radio 6 Music" on air, on the website and in print and that the name change should be restored.-- Fursday 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion the only reason keeping the article as "BBC 6 Music" was if that was the name the station was referred to by most, if not all, of the presenters or in BBC Documents. However, ! am now being told (I don't listed to 6 Music myself) that on-air the station is known as "BBC Radio 6 Music". As a result it should be moved back - it is the current name used by the BBC and it also brings the article name into line with the other BBC Radio articles. Rafmarham (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article should be "BBC Radio 6 Music" as that is how it is referred to on air. Exok (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I've just done a bit of original research :) and both versions still seem to be used: The moderator said "6 Music", whereas jingles said "BBC Radio 6 Music". The livestream in iTunes still says "BBC 6 Music", as does the Radio 6 website. I'm unsure about how to proceed as we are [3] discussing whether it was right to move the page in German Wikipedia to "BBC Radio 6 Music".--Aschmidt (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record II: I wrote to the BBC, and I've just received their answer – it's now "BBC Radio 6 Music". The BBC website is still inconsistent, but this will be changed soon.--Aschmidt (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that settles that then. Thanks. Exok (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Website has a giant banner at the top which clearly says "BBC Radio 6 Music". The HTML Page Title, however, says "BBC - 6Music" [sic]. -- Fursday 01:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text from History section

[edit]

An explanatory note to the removal of some text from the article on 6 March 2012. The text stated that the station was moving to MediaCityUK in Salford. However, in this case it was only one programme moving. The station is primarily based at Western House and will soon move into new studios at the revamped Broadcasting House. However the programme referenced was recorded at the BBC's Manchester studios in Oxford Road and so when they moved out, so did the programme. The station itself was not moving to Salford. Rafmarham (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's not just one show. Chris Hawkins and family moved up there:
And the original article I cited says 115 BBC Radio 6 Music staff will be moving up north. That's not just one show. Also, many BBC Radio 6 Music shows are already broadcasting from MediaCityUk in Salford. Like Craig Charles, Jarvis Cocker,
And other information for different shows:
--- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In these articles it has stated that these programmes are moving north, not the station itself. The station headquarters are to remain in London while some programmes previously made in the Oxford Road studios and in London are transferring to Salford. It is the same situation for other radio stations. A parallel example is Radio 4; their headquarters will remain in Broadcasting House, London, but some of their programmes, including You and Yours, Woman’s Hour and Front Row (all stated in the Radio Today article) are now being recorded in Salford. This practice is not uncommon: just as TV programmes are produced by each of the BBC's Network Production Centres so are radio programmes. It is just that some of 6 Music's programmes have been transferred from London to Salford.

Final clarification. The station headquarters itself are not moving to Salford, however some of the programmes made for the station are now being made in Salford. Rafmarham (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

[edit]

What a complete dog's dinner.

  • Two paragraphs describing the music content (including a very jargonistic list) seems far too much. Do we have any suggestions for a nice succinct paragraph to describe the stations music? Is it perhaps worthwhile considering a section going into more detail as to its content, along with the John Peel reference?
  • Is the closure still relevant in the lead or should this be left to the history section?


-- Fursday 01:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the intro on the 15th, and someone completely undid the whole thing (including my adds to the 2012 Sony Award wins) the following day.

--Nickcolby (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fursday did you mean setting up a seperate linked page to the 6music page outlining the music they play including John Peel sessions, 6music themes of the month etc. - if you were I agree with that.Putting the information on 6music's front page does clutter things up a bit - I agree with you there Scratchy7929 08:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the 2012 Sony Award win back in - removed it by mistake.It sound's a little BBC (along with it's music industry supporters) blowing it's own trumpet a little bit to me - alot of people will realise that though.I read it as very much marketing speak.Who going to add a "succinct paragraph to describe the station's music?" as Fursday above mentions.There is no reference of the type of artist's played at all at the moment.Perhap's I did over do it.But as 6music does seem to cover everything from '50's pop music, some disco to a little bit of alternative metal & experimental music it would be hard to make it succinct.A very strangely diverse / eclectic range of music that seems at odd's with it's remit at times - especially during day time shows i.e. " Its programmes juxtapose current releases outside the mainstream with earlier recordings " " focus on major artists and material which do not receive much support from other radio stations " " It should reflect the breadth of work produced by iconic artists, including a high proportion of less familiar tracks. 6 Music should aim to provide different music to that played on other radio stations. It should minimise the number of tracks played in daytime, including new tracks, which are also played on Radio 1, Radio 2 or comparable commercial radio stations in a typical week." " It should focus on new music, particularly that made by UK artists, prioritising less familiar acts who may become enduring icons in the future but who do not enjoy commercial support, thus demonstrating its independence from commercial interests " " It should significantly extend the range of music available to its audiences and aim to increase understanding through the context it provides for the music it plays " etc. etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/service_reviews/service_licences/6_music.shtml http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/radio/2011/6music_apr11.txt http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb6music/NF1950413?thread=5752756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

[edit]

I have removed a large list of every possible genre and sub genre that might be marginally connected to this station. Please discuss additions of genres from now on. Ridernyc (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record there were 46 separate genres listed. Ridernyc (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise I didn't write all of that article, although I did amend it quite alot, Wikipedia does say be bold though.I hope you reached consensus with the other people that wrote that article before removing it.Fursday (above) did mention in this section that the music played was not adequately covered as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was WP:BOLD and removed it. So do you have an comments on the article or are you going to just post ad hominem attacks? Also once again please learn to sign your posts. Ridernyc (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without consensus it seems - which you seem to like mentioning.Added a comment above BTW() Scratchy7929 22:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk)

This will be my last response to if you continue attacking instead of discussing. And once again please learn to sign your posts. Ridernyc (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to open up a 'critical' discussion with you (which is part of what Wikipedia is about) but you seem unable do to that.One way traffic it seems with youScratchy7929 00:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise 6music as a triple A station

[edit]

Haven't checked out this Wiki page in a while but noticed the multi-radio formats have been removed - 6music cannot be pigeon holed as a format station / to it's detriment perhaps.6music does play some adult album alternative music - maximum 25% of it's output perhaps (alot of that on the fringes of what could be considered triple A even).Therefore 75% of it's output lay outside of what could be considered triple A.

Alternative pop-rock would be closer output description of the station due to the high level of single releases it plays (no categorisation link on Wiki though) especially during day time hours.6music is definately not a Alternative Rock station (possibly Modern Rock would be a closer radio format description).To call it an Alternative station would be misleading also due to the large amount of music it plays on the divide between mainstream & less mainstream music + the large amount of retro pop & roots influenced music it plays. Scratchy7929 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)


Missing - the one most important fact about the station

[edit]

When I first read an article about a music radio station, probably the most important fact I want to be told is what type of music it plays. This article manages to neglect actually identifying it. Saying it's sort of similar to Radio 1 & 2, but with less chart music, avoids saying what it actually plays instead...

Additionally, the "'A/B/C' structure" thing is baffling (is it explained anywhere?) and certainly doesn't need to be discussed in the second paragraph. The articles for Radio 1 & 2, specifically referred to and linked here, don't even appear to mention the A/B/C playlists.

Could anyone suggest a good way of describing the musical output, so we can make the lead section a bit more useful to readers new to the subject?--David Edgar (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph near the top, which I hope goes some way to rectifying this omission. --David Edgar (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC Radio 6 Music. 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).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BBC Radio 6 Music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on BBC Radio 6 Music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Cocker

[edit]

Is it correct to list Jarvis as a current presenter?

I know the show is "Sunday Service with Jarvis Cocker" but I can't think of a single Sunday in the two plus years I've been a listener where he didn't have a guest host sitting in..... 2601:241:8102:221C:9473:E4B7:659B:4294 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Former presenters

[edit]

Please can we have a section for former presenters? Off the top of my head: Bob Harris, Adam & Joe (Adam Buxton, Joe Cornish), Liz Kershaw, Phill Jupitus, Shaun Keavney, Jarvis Cocker

How I can this station received on Internet?

[edit]

How I can this station received by the Internet? Thank for the answer! Wilske (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_Radio_6_Music&oldid=1251792173"