Talk:The Archers

'longest running soap '

This does seem like the sort of claim that realy needs a referance.Petethewhistle (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

While I am prepared to believe it, there is still no firm reference to support the claim. This claim was made with no evidence when the article was created in 2002 and has since been modified to "longest running radio serial" but with no citation. The claim can be found in many newspapers, but may have originated from this article or a BBC Press Release. This is a long time to have an uncited claim of a very notable feature of the subject.Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify why my 2020-12-15 amendment was almost immediately removed with the comment "(Ignorant message removed)". I had simply clarified that TA is longest running by number of episodes, and will become longest running by running time in 2023; what's ignorant about that? (I had also added something re the Nigel plummet, and a punctuation correction - there was no reason to revert the latter, leaving the entry incorrectly punctuated.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G6JPG (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Guiding Light ran for 72 years and had 18,262 episodes

There was no truth whatsoever in the unsubstantiated WP:OR that The Archers is the world's longest-running soap opera in any format. Guiding Light ran from 1937 to 2009 (72 years), and had 18,262 episodes. I deleted that error from the lede, and also deleted the footnote, which said nothing of the kind, and didn't even say The Archers was the world's longest-running radio soap opera (which, again, is unsubstantiated WP:OR or opinion unless cited with a WP:RS). Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Theme tune

It says that the theme tune was referenced during the Olympic opening ceremony on August 27, 2012. Olympics opened in July. Should it be July 27, or closing ceremony, or Paralympic opening ceremony? I don't know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.255.25 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Archers. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106073640/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radio4/junespencer.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radio4/junespencer.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Production Team

Does anyone agree that there needs to be a separate section listing the Editors of the programme? The Editor information is out of date and these figures make a significant contribution to the show. (Neneway (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC))

Good idea. Give it a try. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion sounds good to me - changes in the editorial leadership, and subsequent storyline developments, seem to increasingly feature in the news nowadays. JezGrove (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New "long read" article in The Guardian

There's a new "long read" piece in The Guardian which has a lot of interesting background information: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/dec/15/the-archers-weird-genius-peculiarly-english-epic JezGrove (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Fan Clubs

I am not an experienced Wikipedian so apologies if I am not doing this correctly.

A couple of days ago I wrote to Gareth Griffith-Jones asking why he had deleted my entry in the fan clubs section about the Dumteedum fanclub.

You can see my question here </ref>https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Gareth_Griffith-Jones#The_Archers_and_Dumteedum</ref>

The Archers and Dumteedum hi I believe you deleted my entry about the Dumteedum Archers fanclub. I'm not a regular Wikipedian, and have recently started listening to the Dumteedum podcast. I am open to the idea that you may be right, but I am not sure. They regularly cite the Academic Archers and are I think as popular, have a web page, years of history and not scammy or anything like that. I've no personal agenda. What would be your criteria for note-worthiness? Happy New Year Richard Lucas posting as Lambrook (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Lambrook

My original post was "Dum Tee Dum is a weekly podcast [108] about the Archers that features Lucy Freeman and Roifield Brown. Released every Monday it features a comprehensive rundown on the last week's Ambridge action. At the end of 2020 they had podcasted 363 episodes. As well as a webpage [109],</ref>https://dumteedum.com</ref> Dumteedum has a Facebook Group, [110], Twitter feed [111] </ref>https://twitter.com/DumTeeDum</ref> and a map of members [112]. </ref>https://dumteedum.com/map</ref>

I would add to this discussion that members of the Archers cast regularly appear on Dumteedum specials, they raise money for charity, and that it is as notable as the Academic Archers </ref>http://www.academicarchers.net</ref> fan club which is referenced. Evidence is for example in the number of Twitter Followers. The Academic Archers https://twitter.com/academicarchers has 2,837 followers and the Dumteedum https://twitter.com/DumTeeDum 8,887 Followers

I am fully open to the idea that I am wrong, and would like to understand why - if I am. I wanted to write to someone about the way the Dum Tee Dum fan club works, and assumed that I would find a reference to it in Wikipedia. If other fan clubs are mentioned why not this one. Richard Lucas username Lambrook (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Lambrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambrook (talk • contribs) 10:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Lambrook (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Richard Lucas

I re-instated my post about DumteeDum podcast and webpage after correspondence with Gareth Griffith-Jones here

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Gareth_Griffith-Jones#The_Archers_and_Dumteedum who advised me to do so leaving a note here. DumteeDum has half the number of Facebook members as the Academic Archers, double the number of Twitter followers, and 20,000 or 40,000 downloads. The two groups are 'friends" and support each other. Someone interested in Archers fan clubs would want to know about its existence.If there are arguments against it being here, please state them with the take down. Thank you Richard Lucas, Lambrook10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

This article is hopelessly incomplete and out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:1118:4C01:E025:B8C1:FA1:8EDF (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Then edit it to make it more complete and up-to-date 🙂 G6JPG (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Spile Troshing

Wtf is spile troshing? The links just go to wiktionary entries for "spile" and "troshing", which are completely useless for understanding what it is. LordApofisu (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@LordApofisu: See this twitter feed by Keri Davies, one of the series' long-term scriptwriters. On the other hand, perhaps see the book Fox Tossing, Octopus Wrestling and Other Forgotten Sports by Edward Brooke-Hitching which reckons to cover it. PamD 22:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis

After reading the 'synopsis', it strikes me that I still have no clue what the show is actually about. This whole section of the article is really more about setting than it is about plot.

It'd be nice if someone familiar with the show could fix this. Desdenova (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Desdenova That's quite a challenge, as it covers 70 years of the life of an extended family and their fellow-residents of Ambridge! Its very essence is that it covers a wide range of threads even within any one week - at the moment we have grief over death of a central figure, family tensions over "why didn't she tell us she was dying", her young stepson (result of her husband's past affair) suffering the ending of a lucrative "sugar-mummy" relationship, another young man (previously jailed for drugs offence, heir to stately home) attempting to reconcile his mother and his uncle, drama over rearranging the biscuits in the village shop, a woman (enthusiastic and entitled activist) trying to tell another one (highly qualifed and professional farm manager) how to do her job, a couple hoping that their cute baby twins will make a fortune as models, ... I wouldn't say quite "All human life is there", but it's an approximation. Good point about that "Synopsis" section, I'll have a go but haven't time right now. PamD 08:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think even something like "This show is about the every day life and challenges of a family in [City name]" would be a decent solution. Obviously, you could make it a bit more detailed, and maybe even mention some of the examples you gave here. That definitely tells me more about the show than the current 'synopsis' ;) Desdenova (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Reception?

I don't see a Reception section. Do/did critics like this radio soap opera? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:E939:76CC:9B4A:1BC8 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

honour removal?

The 2024-7-2 revision has removed June Spencer's CBE, on the grounds that "postnominals aren't used in the main text". What is the reason for this rule - if it actually is a rule? If it is, can an exception be made for this venerable person? G6JPG (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)