Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/British television task force/Channels/Archive 1

message: I've only just found this, so I'm guessing not many will be aware of the existence of UK-tv-stub The JPS 23:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub 

message: Why are so many of the Freeview (digital-only AFAIK) channels listed as being "PAL-I" standard on terrestrial? Am I missing something?- I thought PAL was analogue only. This seems to apply to the new infobox channels apparently, though I don't know if it's a limitation of the design, an oversight, or my misunderstanding. Fourohfour 21:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PAL is a method of encoding colour information in a television image. and can be used in digital signals, however the I part is certainly analogue only. I think this information would be better described in the articles on the platforms. as one channel can broadcast in many formats - eg BBC One in PAL-I, DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S, i720 on DVB-S etc etc, For this reason I have created Analogue television in the United Kingdom which contains the info for analogue channels as somewhere for the basic analogue info to go. I believe the playforms all contain links to the correct standards. I'll remove it from the template MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate transmission info?

message: A lot of articles for British TV channels are stubs. There does not seem to be a consistant choice in sorted stub types, being a split between  and . The stub message that The JPS mentioned above is for programmes not channels so is not really appropriate to these articles. Should we choose one of these for all the articles or should we create a ? -- MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Messages 

message: Guys, I read the article on Channel 5, and it said there are only 3 privately owned and operated TV channels in Britain?!? Is that right? In the USA, there are six private television networks -- NBC, CBS, ABC, WB, UPN, Fox (I listed those in order of how much I like them, lol). So in any major city -- San Jose, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago -- you can get at least six different sources of news that are private and not controlled or funded by the government (the 1st Amendment, of course, is a written law that prevents the government from controlling speech; it is not just a tradition in America, but an actual law, part of the Constitution, the highest law in the land). This is in addition to any additional TV stations that are not affiliated with one of the networks. 
So why is the Brit broadcast market so limited?!? Is it technology? :-/
Or is it the TV license? I still don't see why a citizen of a democracy would agree to a TV license, how silly. ROFL. :) =)) But then you guys are a monarchy, not a democracy...see www.republic.org.uk (I don't speak for them and they're not affiliated with me)
--Brian (the USA is better ;-) lol)
:There are only three privately operated analogue terrestrial networks - and one of them (Channel 4) is also state owned. There are, however, a huge number of private operators in the digital realm, from Flextech to EMAP and BSkyB, as well as imported Viacom and similar channels. The UK (and Ireland) has never gone hugely in for large numbers of analogue broadcast channels, but I can put up a satellite dish and get 300 or so English-language, UK and Ireland targeted TV stations free of charge. Theres no limitation on the TV market. --Kiand 19:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally the way the channel space was divided up in the fifties it was planned to allow only 4 channels. the fifth had to be squeezed in. However unlike the USA, those channels are available Nationwide (excluding Channel 4/S4C which are complementary channels - one OR the other is available nationwide) so one does not have to be in a "major city", tiny villages still get the full range (sometimes excluding 5). The reason for the state ownership of the BBC is related as you say to the licence fee and the idea that the airwaves are owned by the state not the people. Myself, I like the idea of the BBC, it has definately not always taken pro-government viewpoints (see Hutton report and http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/aspidistra/bbcthatcher.htm) whereas in recent years the american media has taken a pro bush standpoint (especially Fox) even though they are privately owned. This is because, being owned by Large corporations, the major networks find that the pro-big-business stance of the Bush administration favours their own agendas. While this is of course Freedom, less conformist views (such as those in The Power of Nightmares) are left out in the cold, in Britain, these viewpoint are given a place to air, paradoxically by the very government they may be criticising. It is two approaches to the problem, letting the market decide and state-regulation to ensure that media corportations can not can exert absolute control over the airwaves. As Kiand said, most people are not restricted to the terrestrial channels, over 60% of household have access to more those channels, a sky viewer can see dedicated newschannels from BBC (which carries some news from ABC), ITV, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, Euronews and more; plenty of choice. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 20:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "I still don't see why a citizen of a democracy would agree to a TV license, how silly." Best go and read television licence - a better name for it would be "television tax" as that's what it is really. They are used all over the world. "But then you guys are a monarchy, not a democracy." Yeah, it's really tough over here, what with our brutal dictatorship and all, your solidarity with those of us living under the crushing yoke of royal tyranny is greatly appreciated. — Trilobite 14:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, most of Europe has TV licences, and I've never heard of a monarch in Finland, Germany, Ireland, France, Austria, Switzerland, and so on. Japan also has a TV licence, and its monarch barely counts... --Kiand 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so few stations? 

message: Since we have :Category:BBC children's television programmes, what do you think about the creation of :Category:Children's ITV television programmes too?  There are articles there to populate it... The JPS 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Children's ITV television programmes]] 

message: I'm trying to clean up :Category:British television - it seems to be populated by BBC controllers. Do you reckon a category should be created, or they should just be put into :Category:Television executive? The JPS 14:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For both of the above I reckon you should do it, I am of the opinion that if there are enough articles to make it worthwhile (say at least ten) then there is a case for a more specific category. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:BBC executives 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles on British TV channels?  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly can. Take a look at BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three and BBC Four. Also BBC News 24 is coming along pretty well. Wikiwoohoo 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If ITV and ITV1 are not already up to scratch, then we need to get it up to standard! Also, Granada Television is pretty good. The JPS 19:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: How about a template between TV channels like:
British television channels
BBC One | BBC Two | BBC Three | BBC Four
ITV | ITV2
Channel Four | FilmFour | five
Maybe with some more channels and a different colour background? Thelb4 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem might be that there are too many of them, and there's bound to be arguments over what to include. ITV already has a huge template. I could be in favour of a similar one for BBC channels...  Templates can be quite a controversial issue... you take ages setting them up and putting them on the pages, then a bunch of people who have never edited these paegs before will come along and vote to delete it. The JPS 18:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, as you can see, I made a new one using the articles in :Category:BBC television channels. Would you prefer this to the one above? Thelb4 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in effect that is better. It'll be less controversial in what to include, and less likley to go to TFD. We should try to get the design as similar as possible to the ITV template. The JPS 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just completed an article listing all BBC Channels (<--That's the article) together with links to each main article. It is just like the ITV channels article in that respect. I added the template listed above and as soon as I did that, realised how many channels I'd missed out! Don't worry, I'll be adding them in soon. Could some of the members perhaps help me out with this, by adding to the brief descriptions I've made for some channels? Thanks. Wikiwoohoo 22:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it to match the ITV template. Thelb4 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great, much better now that the genres are split. Wikiwoohoo 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not missing BBC Choice? --Kiand 16:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't split the channels like that, I would bundle news24 and parlianement as "news & Current affairs" and bung choice and knowledge as closed channels. also I would put the two childrens channels into the first section not sure they deserve the prominence of a section of its own. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Changed per MrWeeble's suggestions. Thelb4 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you think you could separate the channels as per the first version? Is was better with the |'s between each to keept them apart. Just a suggestion. Wikiwoohoo 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Should this be made into a real template, or does it need some more adjustments? Thelb4 21:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Thelb4 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would remove the two closed channels from the UK section as they are repeated in the Closed Channels section. Otherwise Go-Go-Gadget-Template! MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template