Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/British television task force/Channels/Archive 3

ITV Catch Up Service
I'm surprised there's been no mention of ITV's 'Catch Up' service launched recently. It's just as usaable as BBC's IPlayer using Silverlight albeit with a couple of small changes. Perhaps include it on the Itv.com page? 78.109.191.132 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Freeview channel changes from 4 October
Just so everyone knows, for the launch of Five US and Five Life, the following changes are to be made on the DTT EPG to take effect as of 4 October 2006:


 * 28: ITV4 (moved from 30)
 * 29: Film4 (moved from 31)
 * 30: E4+ 1 (moved from 32)
 * 31: ITV Play (moved from 35)
 * 32: Quiz Call (moved from 36)


 * 33 and 34 as present


 * 35: Five US
 * 36: Five Life


 * 37+ as present

This has been announced by Channel 4 here. Marbles333 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

NTL/Telewest channel numbers in infoboxes
I would like to share with you a conversation between myself and Dell9300 we had on his talkpage, and welcome your suggestions:
 * ==NTL/Telewest channel numbers on TV channel pages==
 * I noticed you changed the infobox on the Five (TV) page to read: NTL Telewest linking to seperate articles NTL and Telewest. On the Five Life and Five US page it is formatted as NTL Telewest linking to one article called NTL Telewest which redirects to NTL.

Meanwhile the majority of pages have seperate entries for each platform (and some still have the old NTL channel numbers before last month's reshuffle as I only managed to get as far as ~200 when I went through the list and haven't completed the task). Which do you think is better, to list NTL and Telwest channel numbers as though they are one platform, seperate platforms on the same line, or seperate platforms on seperate lines? - Lee Stanley 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think NTL and Telewest should be on the same line, as two platforms when the channel has the same EPG number, since there isn't an NTL Telewest article (as you said NTL Telewest redirects to NTL). However if NTL and Telewest have different EPG numbers for a channel I think they sould be on seperate lines.--Dell9300 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (copied)

There shouldn't be any cases where the channel number is different on NTL and Telewest, as they have changed both NTL EPGs to match the Telewest one. I'm happy with your suggestion, and will copy this conversation to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_TV_channels and see if they agree over there before we go and change every infobox. - Lee Stanley 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC) - Lee Stanley 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No-one have an opinion on this? I'll give it another day and, if no-one objects, go ahead with it. - Lee Stanley 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support As reported on Digital Spy ,

the NTL EPG numbers are being changed to match those on the Telewest platform, for an expected rebrand of the NTL and Telewest services to Virgin. --tgheretford (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case since no-one else has given an opinion, let's do it. - Lee Stanley 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New Future TV channel template
Hello everyone. Just wanted to let you know that I have created Template:Future TV channel for use with TV channels that are to be launched but not necessarily to be available in the UK. This was after I saw that the Template:Future UK channel template was being used for BBC Entertainment despite the channel being only made available worldwide as the replacement to BBC Prime. Now we have a template that is not country specific and can be used anywhere. Wikiwoohoo talk 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Update
I've updated the TV Channel Infobox so that now you can state if a channel has been replaced by another by using this code... replaced by names=(channel name)| ...which makes it look like this... Replaced by (channel name) ...when before you had to use... replaced names=by(channel name)| ...which made it look like this... Replaced by (channel name).

examples... (look at the last line in the infoboxes to the right)

BEFORE

AFTER

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

New British TV Wiki
http://preswiki.hymagumba.com It's still in it's early stages, so It needs some help. I didn't make it, but I'm in it. It also has Irish channels.Seamus215 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ITV's placement of Regional Idents
Recently on ITV plc's ITV1, I've noticed they've changed the way they use regional idents. It seems they are now occasionally using regional idents prior to network programming, to "plug" the regional programme that follows afterwards (most notably regionally introducing Emmerdale on a Thursday before regional programmes at 7-30), and I have also seen a couple before news (I assume may also be to do with "plugging"). However, yesterday, there was no regional ident before the 7.30 regional programme, but there was before the 10.30 news, 11.00 (Granada Soccer Night) programme and the (Party People) Politics programme at 11.30. Can anyone figure out what their policy is? Marbles333 14:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Programme lists on channel articles - are they worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia?
I have noticed a number of deletions of lists of notable programmes for some channel articles. Personally categories work better for this thing, but does anyone know whether programme lists should be included in articles? They are for radio articles (usually in place of schedules which violate WP:NOT). --tgheretford (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:NOT
I started a discussion to get consensus to have programme lists and schedules regarded as unencyclopedic here: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to add to the discussion. --tgheretford (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone removing "Cellcast" from Cellcast-owned channels
The IP address 81.158.156.134 has been removing the owner name Cellcast from the SmileTV infobox, and also deleted the fact that it bought Game Network a while ago on the Cellcast Group page. I know it owns SmileTV as per the press release that Top Up TV put out about Top Up TV Active and SmileTV, and it's got to own Game Network because there is a webstream of Babestation on Cellcast's website, which legally is owned by Game Network (which therefore suggests to me that Cellcast owns Game Network). Can anyone shed any light why this user did this? Marbles333 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

New collaberation of the moment?
Hi everyone. I was wondering if we could perhaps focus our energies in bringing the BBC News 24 to good article status? It has been the focus of most of mine and others attention recently though I have withdrawn it from being a good article candidate due to suggestions made by The JPS at the article's talkpage. Would you be prepared to help out on this? Thanks. Wikiwoohoo 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To-do list: Articles which need maintenance or cleaning up
The WikiProject Computer and video games have a template for articles which need cleaning up, merging and expanding. I wonder, rather than create a full blown template, whether articles which need cleaning up or expanding could be added to the to-do box at the top of this talk page? I say this because I would love to nominate ITV Play for cleanup! --tgheretford (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. We can still all cleanup ITV Play regardless! Believe me, it needs it! Wikiwoohoo 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added it to the to do box --tgheretford (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to ITV Play, I've done a bit of work on it, but it really needs an expert to get it back to encyclopedic quality! --tgheretford (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ITV, ITV1, Channel 3, etc...
Pit-yacker has started quite a potentially precedent setting discussion on what should go into the ITV, ITV Plc, etc. articles. If it is anything like the discussion at Talk:Freeview/Archive 1, then it will be very heated! Feel free to add to the discussion here: Talk:ITV --tgheretford (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How notable is a channel?
I find that a good number of articles for UK channels which are being created are for minor shopping/minority channels which don't assert notability. What is the mark for notability and inclusion for UK television channels? --tgheretford (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Channel 3 UK
I have started a query into the recommended naming of the ITV/Channel 3 article at WT:NC. TRK tv t c e 22:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 idents
Wikipedia has some good, if patchy, coverage of BBC idents. Does anyone feel like doing an article on Channel 4's? I can't be the only one who's been greatly impressed by them. 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject ITV
Just a thought - soon as there's a Wikiproject BBC, should we have a Wikiproject ITV? There are some extremely loyal editors to ITV-related articles, and I feel perhaps something should be there in addition to this Wikiproject to keep the articles fully intergrated to a high quality standard. ITV is equally as big as the BBC, with its many franchises, programmes, digital channels, companies and so on, and because there's so many companies there's much more changes within the network. Let me know what people think - its just an idea and I can help anywhere within it if required. Thanks Marbles 12:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Media - a task anyone can do
Someone with knowledge of cable needs to go through List of British television channels and Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom and change the name of NTL:Telewest to Virgin Media (checking Digital Spy's cable line-ups (source), the EPG numbers for each local line-up hasn't changed, except for the name). While I am here, the relevant articles I just mentioned also need cleaning up. --tgheretford (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Virgin Media Television is a complete mess, along with the attempt to create a template which is an copy of the article, which I nominated for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a few already. For ex-NTL and Telewest channels that are different from each other I've put 'Virgin Media (ex-Telewest)'. Hopefully that should be OK for now. --AntL 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note to this topic, I've created Virgin Television channel line-up, for which I must credit User:Tghe-retford and his List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland article for the inspiration to do. --Lee Stanley 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sky channels - 'until summer 2007' on Virgin Media
It seems 'until summer 2007' has been added to all Sky channels beside the Virgin Media channel numbers. I didn't think this was confirmed yet. For now I've removed the comments until Sky have confirmed this is definitely the case. -- AntL  talk   12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Briantist added a source from Broadcast magazine, which is: Sky warns cable viewers they may lose its channels. However, I cannot read the article because it requires a subscription, but it still qualifies as a reliable source

if it does state (and verified by someone who has a subscription) that Sky's channels will be taken off Virgin Media in Summer 2007, then it can be kept as a reliable source. If anyone can find a free reliable source to back up this information, please do so. --tgheretford (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The important word in the title of that article is 'may'. The negotiations, at this stage, are still on-going

and a deal has yet to be reached. Briantist later added the word 'possibly' before 'until Summer 2007' but for some reason this seems to have gone. -- AntL  talk  21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Well - today it was announced that the basic Sky Channels will be removed from Virgin Media from March 1 (source), so all the articles for the basic Sky One channels (this deal does not include Sky Sports or Sky Movies) will need to be updated. --tgheretford (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone did the same thing regarding Sky News being removed from Freeview today -

Sky's plans for DTT are subject to OfCom approval and there is no evidence to suggest that Sky News would disappear completely from the platform as it could become subscription (let's hope it doesn't and that Sky dig themselves out of these two holes they're putting themselves in, eh?) --Lee Stanley 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on Channel 4 article split
What are people's opinions on the recent split of the Channel 4 article, creating the new Channel Four Television Corporation article? There was no consultation when it was made, and has yet to be any comments at talk:Channel 4. Fursday 05:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM proposal for 4 Digital Group
I apologise for the somewhat off-topic nature of this comment, it concerns British Radio, rather than British Television, but in the absence (to my knowledge) of a British Radio WikiProject, I thought raising the matter here, rather than at the Radio WikiProject might be more appropriate, especially as it indirectly concerns a British TV Channel, Channel 4.

I am requesting a move for 4 Digital Group article, 4 Digital Group being a consortium bidding for a UK DAB multiplex. The move will be to an article that discusses the multiplex tendering process in general and discusses all of the consortia involved, not just this one.

The discussion is taking place here.

Apologies again for the off-topic nature of this comment,

-- Fursday 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of coincidence, I wanted to start a UK specific task force on radio stations, but only one person has responded so far. --tgheretford (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject British TV Channels → WikiProject British Broadcasting OR WikiProject British TV and Radio channels?
Fursday made a suggestion whilst discussion was ongoing about a proposal for a UK radio stations task force that the British TV channels project could be expanded to cover both TV and radio within the United Kingdom. At the moment, there is no specific WikiProject or task force like the British TV channels WikiProject that covers radio stations in the UK like TV stations are covered by this WikiProject.

I am therefore asking for opinion on how the idea of UK radio stations should be covered by a WikiProject in Wikipedia in the same way that UK TV stations are, either as part of this one as a "TV and radio stations" WikiProject, or as separate entities, with both TV and radio stations having their own WikiProjects. Opinions and suggestions welcome. I wish to gain the consensus of other WikiProject members (and other people too!) before going ahead with any UK Radio stations WikiProject. There is support for a UK Radio stations WikiProject as things stands from the discussion on the UK radio stations task force. --tgheretford (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Freeview or Digital Terrestrial?
There seems to be a lack of consensus on how to refer to the Digital Terrestrial platform in articles - whether it should be 'Freeview' or 'Digital Terrestrial'. Some, like myself, prefer the latter term, whilst others prefer Freeview. My argument for supporting Digital Terrestrial as a term is that Freeview is merely a consortium that promotes the platform's free-to-air services, and Freeview does not in itself, own and operate the multiplexes and channels. This makes Freeview distinct from Sky Digital with whom stations have to enter into agreement in order to have a place on the Sky's EPG and take advantage of Sky's own proprietary encryption system, or Virgin Media who provide the entire service.

Of course the argument for using Freeview is that readers will by now probably be more familiar with the term for the platform, rather than the more specific one.

Either way, my opinion is that there ought to be at least some consistency over the usage of the terms in instances where either could quite justifiably be used. -- Fursday 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, I use the platform brands when referring to specific channels. For example, a free channel such at The Hits I would label as being on Freeview, likewise, I would label a pay channel such as UKTV Gold as being on Top Up TV. However, some channels (mostly pay per view) don't fit that pattern and can only be referred to as Digital terrestrial, such as Television X, Xtraview, Top Up TV Promotional Channel and Red Hot TV, which are neither on the Freeview or Top Up TV platforms. /Marbles 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on ITV and Channel 3 (UK) merger
The debate on whether to merge the articles ITV and Channel 3 (UK) has yet to be completed, and has been going on for a while now.

I have additionally proposed a name change to Independent Television should a merged article arise, so I'm also interested in thoughts on that.

So any final thoughts towards consensus? Comments are at talk:ITV -- Fursday 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

CBBC Channel - urgent cleanup required
The CBBC Channel article has so many problems with it that it now has a lot of tags on it. If it wasn't for the fact that the channel is notable, it could be nominated for deletion. We need to cleanup the article and bring it up to standard A.S.A.P. --tgheretford (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideal World - speedy deleted
Ideal world was speedy deleted as spam not so long ago. Because of its position on the Freeview platform, as well as CBM TV not being able to launch on channel 22, hence allowing Ideal World to launch, the channels does need its own article, sans the spam! --tgheretford (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has just been created, but it needs more information and third party references. --tgheretford (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT - important changes relevant to us
There has been some important changes in what is and isn't relevant in Wikipedia regarding programme lists and schedules. See section 1.7.3 of WP:NOT and its discussion page. --tgheretford (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Important warning: Fair use rationale warning for TV/radio logos
Be warned that fair use rationales with have got be full, complete and watertight. I have had a contribution speedily deleted under CSD#I6 under WP:NFCC, even though it had this rationale, which I thought would cover it. I have also had an official warning for the text below on the aforementioned contribution:


 * 1) It is a logo of a pay television service which cannot be described in prose;
 * 2) There is no free alternative available;
 * 3) The logos inclusion to the article is paramount as it was the subject of a major advertising campaign;
 * 4) It is a low resolution image of the logo;
 * 5) It is a historically significant episode and logo of British Sky Broadcasting.

I have not come across a TV logo image which has as much as this, and it is likely that all of these are likely for deletion. If you have updated anything, make sure it is watertight and complete, and add as much information as you can. Seems paranoia about copyright is creeping in. --tgheretford (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed that rationale see you had the wrong page listed in the rationale. βcommand 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Parentage is incorrect
As it appears that WikiProject Television Stations has limited its scope to North American TV stations it can hardly be considered a parent of the present project. I believe an initiative has been taken to rename that project accordingly. __meco 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sky Mag etc
Should articles such as Sky Mag, Sky Bet etc. be added to this WP? Malpass93 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi everyone, the Peer Review page suggests asking for feedback from appropriate Wikiprojects to aid in a Peer Review request. I just put up the ITC Entertainment article for Peer Review and I would greatly appreciate some feedback from members of this Wikiproject as I feel the subject matter is not too dissimilar from British TV channels. The review can be found here: . Many thanks Howie &#9742;  23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Science UK
Hi everyone, I have seen the list of "things to do" and I have started up a wiki page on Discovery Science (UK). Now, i don't actually know much information about the channel's history etc but i thought i would lay the foundations for others to expand on. Many thanks Skytvfreak 19.11, April 20th 2008

BBC News (TV Channel) now available free world wide
DYK that the above TV channel has been available free worldwide since 10th April at Streamick.com under BBC News 24. This information is also on the articles' Talk Page and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC Kathleen.wright5 09:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Australia

Freesat EPG
This morning I have found a article about the freesat EPG who a user called Freesatfan only edited. See the page on List of channels on Freesat. --Omegace (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ITV companies - proposal
I would like to try and start debate on a proposal I first mooted here a few months ago.

I put it to you all that we change the way in which articles about companies that have been acquired by ITV plc are handled. Currently, the articles on Border, Yorkshire, Tyne Tees, HTV, Central, Anglia, Westcountry, Meridian and LWT (I exclude Granada and Carlton Televisions from this list for the time being) are treated in the present tense, as current companies that provide a television service under the "ITV1" name in their respective regions for which they hold a Channel 3 licence. While, strictly speaking, this true, the reality is that all of these entities are now nothing more than holding companies and sub-departments of an ever-more centralised ITV plc. At the same time, the articles represent broadcasters which in many cases have long, rich and varied histories in their own right. I therefore think that now might well be an appropriate time to draw a line in the sand and treat them in the past sense; as entities which, for all intents and purposes, no longer exist.

My reasoning for this is severalfold:

operate under the names used in the titles of their articles. There is therefore an irregularity here, if we are to maintain that these companies are considered still to be in operation.
 * Naming: None of the above listed companies (I may stand corrected about HTV and its contributions for S4C)

Information concerning what is left of the regional nature of ITV plc and the subject of once independent broadcasters which had much significance in their own right, are quite distinct matters which I think warrant separation. The former could quite happily sit within sub-sections of ITV1.
 * Subject of the articles: Present-day

Improvement: Most of the articles listed above need a fair bit of work doing to them. By drawing a line and treating them as largely historical pieces, efforts to improve these articles can become more focussed. The articles themselves will also be less cluttered with the details of regional ITV1, which are somewhat trivial in the scope of the rest of the articles.

Logical conclusion: It is a strong possibility that regionalism within ITV plc will one day cease completely. If the present arrangements continue, one would assume that these articles would all end up merging into one, which would make little sense. More likely, this arbitrary line in the sand will have to be drawn eventually, in which case, why not now?

Either way, this is merely the start of the debate, and I am keen to hear some of the objections to my proposal. -- Fursday 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet to launch channels
I suggest that for all list for channels on provider we should remove the sections of yet to launch on any platform and make it own article any channel announced there would then be future channels and would not be associated to one platform as there no way to telling what platform it will be on from launch if it launches.

List of HD Channels
Correct me if im wrong, but i am unable to find an article listing all the HD channels available in the UK. I thought there would be such an article. Please link me to it if it exists, if not this article should be

created. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Techincally it is availble via list of sky channels, all hd channesl in the uk are on there apart from itv hd--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I created this today, "List of HD channels in the UK". Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Defunct channels
A good way to indicate this would be to append (defunct) to the station's name in its infobox. Should we follow the practice of the Radio stations WikiProject who append the word (defunct) to infoboxes where stations no longer broadcast, but keep their own article after the station closes? I have had one good faith edit reverted when I did this today. I would like to know what consensus suggests before making another edit. --tgheretford (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin 1 or Virgin1?
There is a discussion about writing Virgin 1 or Virgin1 at User talk:Digipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move for Manchester United TV
Hi there. I just thought I'd let you guys know that I've requested that Manchester United TV be moved to MUTV. My reasons can be seen at Talk:Manchester United TV. If you have any questions, hit me up on my talk page! – PeeJay 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)