Talk:ITV London

message: The image :Image:Carltonitv1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Lwt2002.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Carltonitv1.jpg

message: Considering that Carlton Television and London Weekend Television have now become ITV London, might I request to merge the Carlton Television and London Weekend Television articles into the ITV London article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.36.129 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose more than enough material on LWT to justify a separate article. As the history of Thames Television and the franchise contractors before 1968 would then be liable for inclusion in ITV London in lieu of a decision in favour on this option, there is a risk that the ITV London article could become vast. Companies prior to a merger tend to keep their own articles on WP. Philip Cross (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Who a daft and stupid idea... then we will also have to throw in LNN page aswell then since both owned that and was the forerunner to ITV london.  Dreadful idea. --Crazyseiko (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Strongly Oppose: Why merge LWT as part of the ITV London article? There is enough material and references for an article called LWT and also for Carlton and other past London ITV franchises.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancarblog (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose: By no means would that be any kind of improvement; indeed, quite the reverse. LWT is/was a separate and distinct entity to the other London contractors and whatever slice of ITV PLC is technically known as 'ITV London' today. Bonusballs (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Strongly Oppose.  This suggestion minimalises the long (46 year) programming history and distinctive style on LWT, by reducing it to an adjunct to the present ITV plc situation.  As user Phillip Cross points out, this would open up the equally abhorrent suggestion of merging in Thames Television and denying it its own article.  62.190.154.115 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Opposed on grounds of utter stupidity as educationally illiterate as suggesting that all British monarch articles should be merged into the current one on Queen Elizabeth II. Get an education! Rgds, --92.19.4.97 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been one month, no one agrees, and everyone disagrees thus lets throw it out. --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request