Talk:ITV (TV network)/Archive 2

message: I think we should add a box on each ITV company like this



But without Preceded and Succeeded and change it to "Win From" and "Lose to".
--RaptorX 18:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A idea 

message: I think someone should start a article about ITV Local (Broadband Internet Service)
This new internet TV service has started its trial in the Meridian Region with Hastings TV and Brighton TV.
You can have a look on http://www.itvlocal.tv/
RaptorX
Thanks for the person that added the paragraph about ITV Local (RaptorX 10:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITV Local 

message: I propose we rename this article History of ITV - that is essentially what it deals with, with ITV plc and ITV1 containing mainly current information. --Rdd 13:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to rename

message: IMHO, this article needs reorganising - no clearly defined sections etc. I'll have an attempt when I have some more time, but if anyone wants to have a go themselves... Marknew 18:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have produced the beginnings of a possible replacement article for ITV that will hopefully have a better structure - please look at it, criticise it and modify it! - Marknew 16:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that, although it is not completely finished yet, the replacement article is now (hopefully) good enough to replace the existing one. Please can anyone interested please contribute, so that all the gaps are filled in! Any comments to my talk page please... - Marknew 22:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganising

message: Something I was left wondering which might be worth mentioning: will there still be franchise auctions despite the current hegemony? (I'm assuming there will, but reading this you might get the idea that the current state of affairs is permanent.) Marnanel 14:22, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Really late reply here... I don't believe that there will be any future franchise auctions; the Act introduced in the early 1990s allows existing franchise holders to apply to renew their contracts (I think). -- Marknew 20:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future franchise auctions

message: That'd be me.
I've spent the last week observing how the Wikipedia works - it looks like it works great, a real collective operation and one I want to add my limited knowledge to where possible.
But despite that week trying to learn, I'm obviously still a complete newbie and will have made hundreds of stupid errors - that's what newbies do, of course!
So can I ask a favour of Wikipeople with more experience and knowledge than me?  Please can you look at my contributions so far (I've acknowledged stupid things I've done that I've noticed) and let me know - in calm, patient words of one syllable or less - what I need to learn from?
BTW, the two new articles I've added are edited versions of articles from http://www.transdiffusion.org/ and are definitely used with permission - they're Open Content via CreativeCommons, plus one was written by me and one was written by my boyfriend!!
User:Redvers ... and there's a way of inserting the date and time here.  Oh, learning curves, what fun.
:You're not an idiot, and thanks for asking for advice. I've put a reply on your talk page. -- Arwel 22:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie/possible idiot alert 

message: Hello, I notice from my watchlist that this article has been moved to Independent Television. In my opinion, this move should not have taken place as it goes against the decisions made for other articles of this type; for instance, the following was posted to the British Broadcasting Corporation talk page before it was moved to BBC:
:I propose we move the page to BBC. They are just initials to most people, I suspect. As precedent - we have CBS, NBC at the abbreviated form, as well as NASA. (ABC is at American Broadcasting Company, but only because ABC really needs to be a disambiguation page). Morwen 10:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC) (from Talk:BBC/Archive4).
In addition, the majority of pages which link to this article use ITV, not Independent Television. For these reasons, I will move the article back to ITV tomorrow unless an argument for the move can be made. --Marknew 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has now been moved back to ITV. --Marknew 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITV moved to Independent Television 

message: I re-added the section about the 1990 Broadcasting Act since I couldn't find out why it was removed, and because I found it very crucial.
Another point about the things from the ITV3 logo and down: I thought ITV2-3-4(-5-6-7-8-9-10) as well as ITV News Channel and ITV Local were something ITV plc launched and owned, not a part of the "ITV Network" (which this article should deal with). I would propose changing much of the text from the ITV3 logo and down so that it doesn't focus that much on the things ITV plc do. Väsk 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That’s what I thought, but the powers that be have decided that this article is now the History of ITV (Network) and the article about ITV1 is about ITV (Network) today, even though ITV1 is only something to do with ITVplc, the whole Wikipedia ITV thing needs to be sorted out, it mainly deals with ITV Plc, and largely excludes SMG Plc, UTV Plc and Channel Television, there are plenty of mentions about ITV Digital, ITV2,3,4,News Channel (excluding the ITN\ITV News), but nothing about UTV Internet or U105 in the main ITV article? IMO all the stuff to do with Carlton\Granada\ITVplc should be in that article, this should be about "Channel 3" as Ofcom calls it. :: Keith :: 23:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made quite a lot of edits in the particular sections, and also removed some text. I tried to sum it all in an "Adapting to multi channel television"-section, which I think is good (although it needs some improvement, perhaps). In this section I also added a short section about what UTV and SMG are doing to adapt. Väsk 19:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990 Broadcasting Act 

message: The map looks bizarre. Where are the Scottish Islands? --Augustusr 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, where are the Channel Islands? A big square that says 'Channel' doesn't count. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is able to fix it, sort out Northen Ireland, County Fermanagh is not that big, Thanks. theKeith  15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It isn't accurate to show STV as one area, as that doesn't reflect the regional news/current affairs, etc the former Grampian still broadcasts. It would make more sense to have two coloured areas both marked 'STV'. Confusing, maybe, but more accurate than the current map. Also, sorry to be picky, but if the Channel Islands can be in their own boxes, why not Orkney and Shetland, just to the top left? --Stevouk 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Orkneys were left out because (AFAIK) they don't have their own fanchise, so it didn't seem worth including them just for completeness' sake. As to the STV/Grampian thing, if someone can dig up a decent quality (ie not .jpg) map showing the borders of the two I'll upload a new version. --Daduzi talk 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The "See also" section is way too long, and it duplicates links found in the article body. Could someone please do a cleanup here? Punkmorten 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: On the subject of better specifying the difference between ITV Network and ITV plc, would this perhaps be an idea: To retitle the article 'Channel 3', which is the official name given by Ofcom (while still redirecting from 'ITV Network' and simply 'ITV')? I realise that nobody calls the network 'Channel 3' save Ofcom, but the advantages of this are that (a) it's technically more accurate, (b) it will allow us to introduce the concept of the ITV Network as a less 'official' name (or as a subsection of Channel 3) and thus to remove the ambiguity of the article title as opposed to ITV plc, and (c) make the content regarding the breakfast and teletext providers more appropriate, since technically GMTV and Teletext are indeed part of the 'Channel 3' providers but cannot really be described as part of the ITV Network, which only describes the regional licenses - rather they are national services. I propose 'Channel 3' as the main title, followed by subtitles for the 'regional Channel 3 network' (which could link to a separate ITV Network article if necessary?), the breakfast provider and the teletext provider, followed by a heading for 'Digital Channel 3', which is currently not mentioned as it also is not part of the Network. 
Or is all this just pedantry? ;) Your thoughts, please! (In the meantime I've attempted to edit the introductory paragraph to state that it is the Network being discussed in this article, rather than ITV plc). —This unsigned comment was added by WizardT (talk • contribs) .
:I agree: the use of the ITV name by ITV plc has led to a lot of confusion. If the current article is moved to Channel 3, maybe the new ITV article could be used as a disambiguation page - pointing to ITV plc and the new Channel 3 article? --Marknew 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely disagree for one major reason, ITV is no longer one channel. Channel 3 is Ofcom's title for what we call ITV1. If you move this article to the Channel 3 article, you'll be putting ITV back as a singular channel along with ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV Channel, ITV Play, Men And Motors and anything else they have under the banner of ITV. That, to me, would make the new article even more confusing than this one already is. We need to find another way to avoid the confusion. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel 3 

message: Since infoboxes are the in thing now, I though I'd offer up this to possibly go at the top of the page, given that most other broadcasters have a similar box. I've filled in all the details I could, all that's empty is the past_names field (which isn't relevant) and the slogan field, since I'm not aware of any current slogan for the company. --Daduzi talk 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One slight problem, its not owned by ITV plc, its owned by the ITV Network. ITV plc just happen to own far and away most of the franchises. --Kiand 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, thanks for the info. --Daduzi talk 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Does there need to be what looks like a copy of the listings for this week on this article? I can appreciate why someone's added it, but it's likely to get old very quickly. doktorrob™ 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Programming Schedule 

message: I've noticed that several of ITV's older programmes have had their copyright dates changed to more recent years. For example, a number of the older Agatha Christie's Poirots made in the late eighties/early nineties have been appearing with copyright dates of as late as 2005 & 2006 at the end of the programme. In some other programmes the whole end-credits have been changed, e.g., Inspector Morse, again with much later copyright dates. Anyone know anything about this? - I know that ITV was criticised a while back for not making enough new programmes but this seems decidedly iffy. Ian Dunster 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading Programme dating?

message: I notice UTV and SMG both have category boxes for their pages. Should one for ITV plc be adopted? Marbles333 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to take all the ITV plc stuff out of the current template, to make it a Channel 3 box. UTV Internet and Virgin Radio are not on Template:ITV so why is ITV3 and Men and Motors?   Keithology  Talk!  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we here are experts on ITV, but general viewers of the channel(s) and readers of the encyclopedia are not. We have to think of what our customers (and they are the readers, not the editors) expect of a navigation box. Do they expect everything - Virgin, UTV Internet etc - or do they expect the basics - the on-air names? Or do they want something inbetween? Do we need a List of ITV-related subjects and link to that? The BBC has one... ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made a quick one based on the SMG one, see here. Marbles333 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for ITV plc? 

message: From December, for the formation of ITV Thames Valley, HTV West and Central  are changing their franchise areas, as as far as I can gather:
*Hannington Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Meridian West)
*Oxford Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Central South)
*Ridge Hill Tx will be going to ITV West (switching from Central South)
So concluding this, I have made a quick (shoddy!) idea on what the new franchise areas will look like for December (it's a rough guide made in MS Paint on the new boundaries based on those transmitters' coverage maps, its not official, and new region is shaded in Pink):
Click for image
When we know more about the region, I daresay the author of ITVmap.jpg can edit it accordingly (and unfortunately will have to re-colour coordinate it all over again! Marbles333 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a "franchise" though, its just a sub region that happens to be made up from two franchises. Do we have Central South and Meridian West on the franchise map? No... --Kiand 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there you're arguing that people who will be in the Thames Valley broadcast area will be watching Central South for example? It's been confirmed ITV Thames Valley will become a brand in its own right, and will not be connected on-air in any way to Meridian, Central or HTV (and therefore not a subregion of them), and those who fall in its broadcast footprint will receive "ITV1 (Thames Valley)", not "ITV1 Meridian" or "ITV1 Central". The Meridian West sub-region and Central South sub region are being merged into ITV Thames Valley, and HTV West's broadcast area will be extended to cover the Ridge Hill transmitter.  See Media Guardian Article another Media Guardian Article and Digital Spy discussion. Officially, I can't see it having an Ofcom-issued license, but on-air it will appear as a region in its own right. Anyway, be it real or not real, the surrounding franchises are changing their broadcast area.  Nice rhetorical question Marbles333 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where the "argument" is, its not a franchise so it should not appear on a franchise map. If the actual legal franchise boundaries change, that should be noted on the map, but it is not a franchise. --Kiand 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not mean the franchise map. There's one which displays the on-air names on the ITV article which is not official (as it uses "STV", "London" and "Wales"/"West" as appose to their legal identity). Apologies for the confusion. Marbles333 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITV Franchise Area Changes from December 4 

message: Just looking around the articles on ITV, I cant help thinking the whole lot is a bit of a confused mess. There seems to be some confusion among editors as to the different terms and names that are used and what they mean in different contexts.  There is also a lot of duplication all over the place.  For example, IMHO, both ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) are practically duplications of this article. Both History of ITV and ITV plc carry news of the NTL take-over.  I think perhaps it is time for a reorganisation?  
I realise that ITV is immensly complicated which makes deciding the structure difficult.  However, to get the ball rolling, IMHO:
* ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) should merge into ITV (this article). A page that discusses the whole network i.e. ITV (Channel 3), its history, its structure, and current programming without constantly refering to the network as ITV1 (a brand  name, with limited geographical scope).  i.e. ITV should be used as the generic term for the whole network.  Perhaps if necessary this page can then be broken down into sub-pages such as structure, history, programming, etc?
* ITV plc should be used to discuss ITV plc as it more or less does now.  
* History of ITV should be used to talk about the network in general terms, so shouldnt really have a discussion about a takeover of ITV plc, as it doesnt really affect the network as such.
* ITV channels perhaps better as "list of ITV channels"? Should also refer to channel 3 by a generic name rather than ITV1. Perhaps listing regions as well?
* Does ITV2 rumour really deserve its own article?  Would it not be better merged into ITV2
* I'm not sure how encyclopedic ITV Network Continuity Announcers is? even if it is, how correct is the title? Do stv and UTV have there own contintuity? If they do, shouldnt it be "ITV1 Continuity Announcers", or given that it also dicusses other channels "ITV plc Continuity Announcers"? 
So what do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Channel 3 article is in a bit of a mess - all it needs really is an explanation saying its a legal formality - it doesn't need to go into depth about the franchise holders as the ITV articles do that. History of ITV - that seems in an okay order at the moment but I agree, ITV plc has bugger all to do with the franchise holders in reality. Plus ITV plc is a fairly new company, so does it need to be mentioned in a article titled "History of ITV"? It should also be mentioned that the article is the history of the ITV Network, not ITV plc the company or any other ITV channels. Perhaps we should have an ITV Network article for the modern discussion of Channel 3 franchise holders only - nothing about ITV2, 3 etc - just pure franchsies and companies. The ITV article can generally go into most things.
It must also be included in the ITV1 article that it is not really a channel in itself, more of a generic name used by twelve franchise holders rather than their own names - it is a brand name. It never has been a "channel" and never will be.
A clear difference needs to be made between ITV, ITV Plc and regional companies - I suggest never to use just "ITV" when referring to ITV plc as this may cause confusion. The ITV template (page footer) also seems to be getting "too big" and goes into depth about digital channels and web portals - perhaps there should be a Channel 3 infobox, then one for ITV plc, SMG plc, UTV plc and so on. Marbles333 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forwarding this, should ITV1 get an ITV Franchisee infobox instead of a TV channel one - it's not a channel just a cover-up franchise name Marbles333 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. I shall change the infobox now. --tgheretford (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, hold off changing it for a minute. The  needs a few changes (predominately the addition of a "changed names" field) before it could be used in the ITV1 article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be got around in this way, don't you think? Channel Television is more or less still with us, so I couldn't really include it in some points of the infobox. Marbles333 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ITV Network Continuity Announcers sounds completely pointless. There is already a Continuity Announcer article which seems perfectly sufficient for this purpose. ITV2 rumour has been merged into ITV2 now, which has a history section to which I gave somewhat of an overhaul, recently. I think this is sufficient for the purpose of explaining pre 1990s ITV2 now. Fursday 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITV: Time for a reorganisation? 

message: As discussed above, I have proposed a merger of ITV and Channel 3 (UK).  AFAICT they are basically the same thing and do actually cover the same content.  After second thoughts, as mentioned by others, I think there is a place for a much reduced ITV1 article discussing that ITV1 is a brand-name but not the history of the network or programming, etc Pit-yacker 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about keep Channel 3 and just mention that it's a legal formality issued by Ofcom, franchise-based, every 10 years and it started in 1955. It still needs an expanation IMO . EDIT: Bad move merging the History of ITV article - not relavant anymore.Marbles333 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not sure what you mean by merging History of ITV.  I think that and ITV should stay as separate articles.  The current history section in this article is very long and in that respect I think separate articles are justified.  However, I think there is a bit of shifting around needed - for example the history section of this article should IMHO be a very breif summary of the longer article - AFAICT, at the moment, it more or less covers everything in the history article. Also the History article previously had issues such as future, which does not really fit in an article on history IMHO. Pit-yacker 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, all I asked was why there is information duplicated from the History article onto this one, such as pre 1993 franchise rounds? Marbles333 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're wrong there. ITV does not own any franchises; it is a network of 15 regional channel 3 broadcasters, and is more commonly known as the ITV Network. ITV plc owns eleven of the 15 franchises on the ITV Network. Since the term ITV (not ITV plc) describes the channel 3 network, it is realistically the same thing; the name "ITV Network" existed before the name Channel 3 anyhow (Channel 3 is just the generic name used by Ofcom and has been used since 1993). However, I believe the channel 3 article should be scaled down, just explaining it is a legal formality, gifted broadcast space and how the franchises work, but information on the companies itself should remain on the ITV article. Marbles 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ITV & Channel 3 (UK) Merger 

message: Any ideas how this might be tidied up? IMHO it could do with a rewrite.  Perhaps looking at some of ITV's older and more notable programming? IMHO the likes of 2DTV arent programmes that we will look back at in 10 years time.
Pit-yacker 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmes Section