Talk:Television in the United Kingdom/Archives/2012

Early discussion
I have doubts about the accuracy of this article on ITV regional broadcasting. Are they actually a single business? I know they often co-operate and exchange programmes, but I thought franchises were still allocated on a regional basis. Also, a linked page has a link to Scottish Television, which just links to Scottish generally. A clean-up by somebody who knows more would be helpful.


 * There are fifteen Channel 3 / ITV1 regional licences, of which twelve eleven are currently contolled by a single company: ITV plc, formed from the merger of Carlton and Granada. Hence it says, "Almost all of these companies have now merged into a single business" (my emphasis). (Update: ITV.com says twelve are owned by ITV plc; in fact ITV plc owns eleven and a 16.9% share in SMG which owns two more). --rbrwr&plusmn; 10:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, Scottish Television does exist as an article in its own right. --rbrwr&plusmn; 11:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree this article needs a major clean-up. Also can we have it moved to Television in the United Kingdom, as ITV, BBC etc. broadcast in Northern Ireland too. Y control 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary grid of platforms
I think a concise summary of platforms would be useful for this article - would this article be the correct place? I'm thinking of something like:

Free platforms:

Subscription platforms:

Walt111 09:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

TODO

 * 1) Add number of households per provider (details from Ofcom) - done
 * 2) Add list of defunct platforms, e.g. BSB - done
 * 3) Add list of forthcomig platforms, e.g. Sky Picnic
 * 4) Add a lot to the history - done. The commentary still needs an overhaul
 * 5) Add technical details of providers
 * 6) Add list of top-viewing channels - done, programmes

Walt111 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Walt111 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

History section is pretty much missing
After the introduction, this article should have a history section, written in prose. The timeline is useful up to a point, but any article about a substantial topic needs a proper history section. Amirada (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some historical information in the "Commentary" section. Amirada (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Completion of Channels and channel owners: Most-viewed channels: Channel numbers
The channel numbers need to be completed where missing.

Alternatively, do the latter two tables add any value to this article? The intent of the numbers was to indicate which platforms are/aren't on which providers. Walt111 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spurious edit?
Could someone confirm the veracity of This Edit? It seems odd to me, and is the only edit of a anonymous user. —MJBurrage(T•C) 09:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Article on children's television in the UK?
I've been looking for an overview article on children's television in the UK, and I haven't been able to find one. I had expected that such an article would exist, and would include a section on the recent disputes over the future of children's television, a subject about which I (in the US) have only a vague awareness. Is there an article that addresses this, and if not, would someone be interested in creating one? (I can't really do it myself, because I wouldn't know where to start for the historical aspect, which is more encyclopedically important than the recent debates.) Any takers? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact
There's nothing yet on the cultural impact in the UK / significance (or otherwise). Can we gather some material we can take some quotes from


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/29/digital-media-television-simon-garfield
 * Views of Janet Street-Porter, Mary Whitehouse, etc

Walt111 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Walt111 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratchpad for cultural impact: User:Walt111/Cultural impact of television in the United Kingdom

Image copyright problem with File:HD ready 1080p logo.svg
The image File:HD ready 1080p logo.svg 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:


 * File:HD ready logo.svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

HD household figures
Should this article show
 * The quarterly viewing figures as released by Ofcom. They lag behind a bit from figures released by individual companies. However the figures from the providers remain in sync relative to each other. It's also broadly consistent with figures from the rest of the article (like this)
 * The latest figures from the quarterly results from each provider (like this)

However, I don't think we should mix the two, e.g. show Ofcom figures for one provider, and the provider's own results for another. Walt111 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has images not understandable by color blind users
I've tagged two line graphs and an area chart with the Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users

The charts in question are:
 * File:Viewing_share_1992_-_2009_of_uk_channels_above_1_percent_area_aggregation.png
 * File:Viewing share 1992 - 2009 of uk channels above 1 percent.png
 * File:Viewing share 1992 - 2009 of uk channels fallen below 1 percent.png

These charts are completely unusable by color blind, as there is no way of connecting the legend to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomvB (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger British student television
Very poor article badly sourced and used as source of self promotion what verifiable information there is should be merge into a section on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.44 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The article should be improved, for sure; but judging by your recent edits, you seem to have some kind of vendetta against student television  Alex Muller  07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I think that Student TV could have a strong article of its own and that most of the individual stations could also have their own as well. However, the article has been very poor for a long time, as have most of the individual stations' articles and no-one seems to want to invest any time in actually sorting it out and getting an acceptable level of citation in there. Surely someone in the whole of student tv or nasta can invest a day and dig out a stack of decent references and materials for this stuff and rewrite the bits that read like adverts. --sfs (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a bit of time into it this morning; mostly getting rid of the obviously bad stuff and rewriting and (hopefully) better sourcing some of the questionable stuff. It's still not perfect, but I'd like to think it's better than it was -  Alex Muller  11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree on merging to this article.  This was about mainstream TV broadcasting.  To open it up to sidestreams, which would include StudentTV, would be expanding the article too much!  It already is getting too large (37page on a preview!), replete with charts and tables. It could actually do with splitting into separate sections!! C'mon = Get real lads --Keith 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for a merge - this is no doubt who does indeed have an agenda where student television is concerned.   pablo hablo. 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for all the arguments above, plus the UK students article is of value thou it needs improving, but it just seems that in someone with access to sources to a do a bit of leg work. Also needs guarding against self promotion pushes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the merge banners because this obviously wasn't going anywhere  Alex Muller  14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)