Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2025. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of the Week article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The current name Book of the Week may be too vague, as many publishers have their own "book of the week". I think it would be better to move the name of this page to Book of the Week (BBC radio series), Book of the Week (BBC), Book of the Week (BBC Radio 4), or something like that. Sometime in the future, Book of the Week could be a dab. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. A disambiguating phrase in parentheses is not needed unless there are other articles with which this one could be confused. What this article really needs is sources showing significant coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
As you say, there are no Wiki pages that it could be confused with, so the current name without parenthesise should be ok. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The brief material regarding individuals reading books is suitable for the relevant individuals' articles (perhaps), but these are merely passing mentions, and none of them provide indepth discussion of the actual topic, i.e. the show itself. WP:NOTABILITY is not transferred to this topic just because notable people have been on the show; notability comes from independent, third party, indepth WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. This material does not, unfortunately, do that. —Fortuna, imperatrix11:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
