Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/British television task force/Channels/Archive 4

Channel list on differnet platform within the uk
After the recent clean up and bringing the List of channels on Virgin TV up to date and to wikiepdia guidelines it looks a lot cleanre and easier to use i suggest that all the othe rlists be clkeaned up ina similar fashion but each will have to be done dependent on the how eahc broadcasts the channels--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Channels and ROI EPG's
For many TV channel areticles which are on the freesat EPG, its says the country next to the TV platform. Next to the EPG on freesat platform channels it says "UK & Ireland", this is wrong. I do not want to seem Anti-Irish, because I'm not, but freesat is de jure available only to UK residents, not ROI residents. Therefore it should only say UK. freesat maybe de facto available in ROI, but in the ROI postcode system it isn't available to determine the regional channels, therefore this further suggests that freesat is not available in ROI. Also the official name of freesat is publicised as "Sat4free" in ROI. So because of all this I suggest that freesat on EPG Channel articles should only day UK next to freesat on TV channels because freesat is not officially available in ROI. Can we build a consensus please, who agrees with me? Cheers Ijanderson (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation
AndrewRT(Talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New sub project
I propuse creating new sub project that is primarily focus on TV Providers, like SKY, Freesat virgin etc, so that a new format can be made up that best suits them and standard of how to layout them out is also set out.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article ratings
Why does the British TV Channels project not have a menas for rating it articles? it seems daft not to be able to rate them.-- Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Former/current TV channel logos on Wikipedia
There seems to be a problem regarding former logos and how they are listed on Wikipedia on some (and/or maybe all?) the TV channel pages. Surely these are part of the channels history and therefore shouldn't be deleted or removed. Some prime examples are the Jetix (UK & Ireland) and Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) pages. Some sort of agreement or arrangement needs to be met here. Comments please... Skytvfreak (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They are aloud to stay the user j milburn is to strict on other rules this iwll have to be borught forth to here and discussed.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Current logos are allowed in the infobox. Other non-free images are only allowed if there is a critical commentary of them. Galleries of non-free images are most certainly prohibited. The JPS talk to me  13:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

TV Channel Infobox Proposal
I have made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox TV channel to remove all of the individual channel number/carrier params of the infobox. Further input would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When channels change their name
The recent launches of three CBS-branded channels in the UK, brings up the question of what to do when channels change their names. CBS Reality, CBS Drama and CBS Action replaced Zone Reality (UK), Zone Romantica (UK) and Zone Thriller, respectively. The new channels show much of the same programme genres as their respective predecessors.

At the moment we have two pages for each channel, one under the former name and one under the new name. I would argue that Zone Reality and CBS Reality are essentially the same channel, but with a new name and a programming boost.

There are some ambiguities, but the main rule seems to be that when a channel rebrands, you simply move the page and consider it to be a continuation under a new name. There are hundreds of examples of this, here are some:
 * French channels: TF1 (formerly La Première Chaîne), France 2 (Antenne 2, La Deuxième Chaîne), France 3, France 5...
 * Comedy Central UK (Paramount Comedy 1)
 * Most of the UKTV channels: G.O.L.D. (UKTV Gold), Alibi (TV channel) (UKTV Drama, UK Arena), Good Food (UKTV Food), Home (TV channel) (UKTV Style), Yesterday (TV channel) (UKTV History), Dave (TV channel) (UKTV G2, UK Gold 2, UK Gold Classics), Eden (TV channel) (UKTV Documentary)
 * Most Discovery channels: Planet Green (Discovery Home), Science Channel (Discovery Science), Military Channel (Discovery Wings), Discovery Home & Health (Discovery Health), Discovery Travel & Living (Discovery Travel & Adventure), Discovery Science (Discovery Sci-Trek), Discovery Real Time (The Learning Channel UK, Discovery Home & Leisure UK), Discovery Knowledge (Discovery Civilisation)
 * Most Disney XD/Jetix channels: Disney XD (France) (Jetix France), Disney XD (UK & Ireland) (Jetix UK, Fox Kids UK)...
 * Many Viacom channels: Palladia HD (MHD), Centric (BET J)
 * Nat Geo Adventure (Adventure One)
 * Challenge (The Family Channel)
 * Bravo 2 (Player)
 * Granada Breeze (Granada Good Life)

There are some valid exceptions, for example if two channels merge to form one. You could also argue that when a channel cleans its schedules, shuts down and is replaced by something completely different, it warrants a new page.

Some instances where I find it questionable to have two pages are the already mentioned Zone/CBS channels, TMF (UK & Ireland)/Viva (UK & Ireland) and The Hits/4Music.

It would be nice to have some input from others on this issue. Väsk (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One simple reaosn history of the channel since it previous chanenl has ot be summairsed in the new page you would lsoe loads of enclopyedic information so by keepign both you retain information and that the goal of wikipeida-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With regards to the CBS/Zone channels, although there are a number of articles that call them new channels, the actual press release from which they are rewritten specifically calls it a rebrand. I would agree then agree that it is a only a rebrand despite the (partial) change in ownership and content (supposedly access to a 70,000-hour library). Considering that all six articles are stubs, there shouldn't be a loss of information.


 * On 4Music, a vote took place (Talk:4Music) and it was appears to have been kept separate due changes in programming but it was officially a rebrand. Based on the 4Music decision, Really also got its own article (Talk:UKTV Gardens), it too was announced as a rebrand. On Viva, the pre-launch advertising and press releases did call it a new channel, promising "a totally new line-up." So, I can see why a separate article was created.


 * Perhaps we need a consensus for determining what is a rebrand/relaunch etc. as opposed to a new channel, in less obvious cases. List of former TV channels in the UK is full of examples of X replacing Y but both having separate articles. I can see ownership and programming changes being factors but in the UK channel numbers aren't as large a factor as they once were now that Sky are not selling new channel slots, leaving only the resale of existing slots. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the problem what is rebrand if a channel is replaceing another then it is rebrand if the former channel is closed down an new channel replacing it is nto rebrand techically but the channels define it deffintely, even still if a article has a lot of informaiton it should not be merged to teh rebranded channels i agree if the channel is stub jsut merge it as there no information lost-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

UK Horizons
Hey guys, I noticed this article is completely unreferenced and doesn't hold up to WP:Verifiability I am from Canada so don't know where to begin on the subject but if you do jump on over to UK Horizons Teamtheo (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is referenced but it is s tub channel jus tno one has expaned it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in infobox tv channel
Infobox TV channel currently has a  parameter, which adds a caption (rather than adding alt text). Would anyone object if I change  to , and then start using   for alt text? --h2g2bob (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems fai renough-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Freeview muxes in infobox?
I was thinking it would be worthwhile adding to the infoboxes on Freeview channel articles details of which multiplex the channel is broadcast on. I propose to merely add it alongside the channel number, as demonstrated here. Would anyone object to me making this change across all relevant articles?  AJ Cham  21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of British television channels
Hi!

I've created a timeline of British television channels at User:Väsk/Timeline of British television channels. It chronicles launches, closedowns and other changes considering British TV channels from 1936 to our days. I believe it to be fairly complete up until about 2009. I would appreciate if someone could help out by adding channel launches that have happened during the last year.

Once the list is mostly complete, I would like to move it to the main article space. Is anyone opposed to this? Väsk (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could discuss merging with or transcluding to/from List of years in British television which contains similar content such as this. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles about ITV franchises
I think I've raised this in the past, but I don't think there was much activity around here at the time, so lets try again:

What are folks' opinions on the titling and scope of the articles about the (ITV plc) ITV franchises? The likes of Yorkshire Television, Central Independent Television, ITV Wales and West et cetera? Currently these articles are worded in the 'present tense' in as much as it is implied that they are still running and operating even though ITV plc has heavily amalgamated the bulk of its operations, completely on the broadcasting side and largely on the production side. As I understand it, separate franchises within England have now been abolished by OfCom, and even local news has seen regions 'merge' in a couple of cases (West and South West being an example). For all intents and purposes, the present existance of these franchises are nothing more than registrations with Companies House.

Moreover there is currently some messy confusion about naming. ITV Wales and West sticks out like a sore thumb as the only article to take on the generic, ITV nomenclature, a messy and botched move if I recall correctly, made without discussion, whilst the naming of the other articles is clearly obsolete. Other articles have flipped between moves between the two styles and most have some confusion in the body as to what to refer to themselves as. Personally I am against moving all of the articles over to the generic naming, as many of these companies had very long and encyclopaedicly valuable histories trading under their particular name. To use the names which they were given at a time when their operations had been heavily centralised into one company, seems a bit wrong to me.

My suggestion, therefore, is that we make the common-sense decision that these companies and franchises no longer exist, which for all intents and purposes they don't, and turn them into historical articles with the traditional naming, in the past tense. As for the present, given there's so little to write about in terms of regional ITV thesedays, I suggest that a series of regional sub-sections within ITV1 would do the job quite adequately. Regional news programmes already have their own articles, which can carry on as is.

Thoughts? -- Fursday 06:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have personally been going through and cleaning up the ITV pages. The ITV Wales and West pages have been retured and condensed into the HTV pages (where they belong). Also, the companies themselves do technically operate the franchise. It may not mean much but they still technically do. That is why it is being keptt in the present tense. I have also been going through and applying a general structure to the pages so that the companies can be easily compared and easily read and understood, as some of the previous layouts were just downright confusing. My layout is History, Studios, Sub Regions (if applicable), Identity, Programmes with any other things at the bottom. I think it makes sense this way. Rafmarham (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We will also have to do a sweep to make sure that every fact is supported by a reliable source. This should be priority. The JPS talk to me  17:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS
I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)