Talk:Glen Michael

Dubious: Two billion viewers

Two billion viewers? Several times the population of the US. Two million viewers? Sounds okay.

Yeah, it's probably meant to be two million, but I didn't want to assume that without checking. (Writer could have been making stuff up for all I knew :-) ).

Fourohfour 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an accumlative two billion. A nation of five million, a popular show and a thirty year span. Evidenced on SAGA FM site. Think they get their figures from stv. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.143.148 (talk • contribs) .

Cumulative? I'm not buying this. If you mean they simply added up (e.g.) two million viewers for each show, then this is misleading and not something I've seen before. Fourohfour 13:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You've never seen accumulative figures for something before? Just change the article to read accumulative then. It's a very basic statistic to demonstrate popularity, that's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.143.148 (talk • contribs) .

Can you provide a link to the SAGA FM page that provides that statistic? Thanks. Fourohfour 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, it was the one at the bottom of the page. I'm still going to ask for advice on this sort of figure though. Fourohfour 10:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional: this site defines cumulative figures as "different or unduplicated persons or households listening during a specified period" (my emphasis). We can assume that this is over the lifetime of the show here. If this is the case, then a show which was mainly shown in Central Scotland could never have had that many viewers. Fourohfour 10:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Television is measured in this way, rating figures are innaccurate because they include families and multiple groups through 'black box' measurement. This means that all television ratings for the entire history of television are innaccurate. It's just the way they get measured and effectively the best way to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.143.148 (talk • contribs).

Dubious my erse. Glen Michael is a world-striding colossus and conquers all he sees. Fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.51.229 (talk • contribs).

Okay, but I'll need a reference confirming that ;-) Fourohfour 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't find one. Have a look if you want, but I don't really want to spend the rest of my life chasing up viewing figures of Cartoon Cavalcade for your purposes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.143.148 (talk • contribs).

I was replying to the guy who said "Glen Michael is a world-striding colossus and conquers all he sees. Fact!", not you, and it was meant as a joke; that's why I put the winking smiley ;-) at the end(!) Fourohfour 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did he not appear in Taggart in a dramtic role int he 90's? I could be dreaming this of course.

Yip. Can't remember details though. Was he an actor (i.e. playing one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.34.116 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good article which seems to do many of the things which Wikipedia is best at by collating and preserving info which might not easily be availble elsewhere, on a topic which could be overlooked by more traditional reference sources, but could be of great value to interested parties. (An American film student trying to decipher Kick Ass, for example). However it sufffers badly from POV and a fansite approach. His panto runs may well have been 'enjoyable', his programmes remembered 'fondly', but that is not how an encyclopedia should be expressing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamcalling (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Early radio work

It seems he had a late night show at Radio Clyde. --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)