Talk:Top of the Pops

"The show aired live on Thursday evenings" - wrong

This is not true - it was recorded on a Wednesday evening and shown on the next evening (Thursday). I know - I worked for the BBC in the 70s. Jaycey (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've amended it to request a citation. Masato.harada (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

YouTube video not necessary to make assertion about length of another artist's performance

The length and date of a performance by the Undertones is confirmed by a video (and description) posted on YouTube. I now see later reference in the history of edits that YouTube video is not an accepted source. However, no source was necessary in this article to assert that Angelic's performance was 91 seconds and on 16 June 2000. Therefore my view is my amendment should be left as stands and I have not reverted it. For what it is worth there is video on YouTube that suggests the Angelic performance is roughly as short as stated, although the first second or so appears to be missing from the part shown in the YouTube video on the Angelic performance. The Undertones performance is featured in full on YouTube and therefore carries more verification than the unsourced Angelic claim. Both are now left unsourced in this article - although I pointed to the YouTube video in the edit summary, I didn't use it as a citation in the article - effectively it is public domain, available for checking should anyone wish to do so, and has confirmed what the TOTP magazine said so is unnecessary to be sourcing what is public knowledge due to copy existing in public that can be checked after my own checking today has verified the according to TOTP magazine is correct.

We don't need 'according to' weasel words and doubt creating over what I have now established, as far as we can reasonably do, the length and date of the performance as a fact. As far as I am to know, the date has been independently given by a collector posting the video of Undertones performance to YouTube. It will likely tally in with the chart appearance which can be confirmed on Official Charts website - we don't need to be doing all this investigative work when there is no reason to be doubting what is claimed to be the date of the programme on YouTube. I have no reasonable basis to doubt it is true and the Angelic performance did not require such efforts but it seems could just be stated in this article with no proof - I do not require any, as I am satisfied on both Undertones and Angelic that this article is factually accurate. The fact, if this is so, that YouTube video is not an accepted source therefore does not cause me to revert the edit I've made. aspaa (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, when you add statements to an article, it needs to cite a source. This must be a reliable source - for example a book written by an author about TOTP. Just referring to a video on YouTube isn't enough as this would be original research using a primary source - you've looked it up yourself and drawn your own conclusion. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:RS to see what's required. You need to find a source like a book or magazine article that talks about the performance by the Undertones, and then it can be cited in this article to back up what you've written.

"According to" are not "weasel words". Everything in Wikipedia should be "according to" someone else. That's how an encyclopedia works - it only reflects what other people have written. Cnbrb (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

There have been a couple of edits attempting to add the "Television controversies in the United Kingdom", "October 2012 in the United Kingdom", "2012 scandals" and "Entertainment scandals" categories to the article, which doesn't appear to reflect the article text. I have requested the article be protected -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)