Talk:2012 in British television

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protection

Is it worth considering requesting semi-protection for this page, to prevent edits by anonymous IP addresses? As far as I can see at the moment, the majority of anon edits to this page are from the TCC fantasist (AKA 'GMTV Chart Show') editing from a range of Eircom Dublin addresses, or sometimes at school. None of these edits are ever legitimate and always claim future launches or relaunches of TCC, or other bogus UK launches of foreign channels like KidsCo or JimJam. The Children's Channel and Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland have both already been protected in this way, purely due to this vandal, and it seems to have stopped the disruption entirely (although the editor is now just going after different articles like Kindernet instead, but at least it's some progress...) Bonusballs (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if it starts to happen a lot you could request protection. Although it's a pain right now, there's probably not enough disruption to justify requesting page protection. Best thing to do is perhaps mention it at WP:ANI or something as it's been happening on and off for a while now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sky at Night - LIES!

Hi everyone,

Several times now I have tried to edit the bit in the 'events' section saying that the BBC has broadcast the last episode of the Sky at Night to be presented by Patrick Moore. This is a LIE. He had recorded January's episode before he died and it is going out this coming weekend. This was mentioned in the news on the day he died, by one of the S@N co-presenters in a recent tribute, in several obituries. I have tried to change this in the table several times but someone keeps reverting it back. Now it is semi-protected! Please can this change be made and whoever made the lie and kept reverting it back to a lie be banned?

Thanks.

This appears to confirm what you say so I'll take a look at it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done It should be ok now, but let me know if anyone changes it again. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. It is ridiculous that nobody believed me on this all this time and kept on changing it back despite no announcement anywhere saying it had been his last episode! Perhaps you should let scientists and rationalists control the editing from now on - i.e. people capable of looking at and using evidence. (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

Perhaps if you had quoted your evidence in the proper manner, with verifiable web references, as is customary on Wikipedia, instead of just writing things like "NO IT ISNT CHECK YOUR FACTS!!!!!" into the text of the article, your point would have been accepted a lot sooner? For better or worse, Wikipedia has rules that place little weight on the contributions of people who come in and write stuff on the walls without giving any kind of indication to support their point of view. There are ways of going about correcting facts on Wikipedia - it's worth taking a few moments to read about them. Bonusballs (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I hadn't checked the page history on this, but having done so I have to agree with the point made by Bonusballs. It's always better to quote a source for something. Even if you can't add it to the article itself (as is the case here), you can always post a comment on the talk page and leave it there. Also, writing in caps is considered to be shouting which a lot of people tend to ignore. Anyway it's fixed now and I've added the relevant information to 2013 in British television. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I need to prove something which was public knowledge? If I corrected a page saying 2+2=3 and changed it to 2+2=4, would you require a source for that too? If something is new, unknown etc. I can see the need of the source. When it is public knowledge that any person who pays attention already knew then it seems unnecessary. (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

You didn't "correct" the page - you left the original content of the page unchanged and wrote "NO THIS IS NOT TRUE YOUR ARE ALL STUPID IT IS LIES!!!!!1!!!" (I paraphrase) - but basically your first edit [[1]] didn't help. You could have fixed or removed the wrong claim - which you could have pointed out was not sourced or referenced (meaning that other wikipedia editors would understand what you mean, and would probably agree with you) but instead you just wrote some sarky comment telling people to "CHECK YOUR FACTS". Edits like that get removed because they're (a) crap and (b) look like vandalism. In your second edit [[2]] you again didn't fix the problem and again wrote more comments about "check your facts!", which you also did in your third edit [[3]]. In your fourth edit [[4]] you did better, but turned the paragraph into nonsense, since by editing an entry on a list of notable events to say that something did NOT happen, you make the entry look stupid. You again added extra comments about "despite what someone wrote earlier" and "this bit the original poster got right". On your fifth edit [[5]] you again added commentary saying things like "not, as some idiots seem to think, ending in 2012". I'm sure you were trying to help, but the way you went about it was wrong. Imagine it's your job to paint road signs. You notice a road sign which says that the speed limit is "40" but you know this is wrong and that it should actually be "30". What do you do? You remove what's wrong and add in what's right. You don't make up a whole new sign that says "40 NO ACTUALLY NO THATS WRONG CHECK YOUR FACTS WHAT AN IDIOT THE REAL SPEED IS SOMETHING ELSE". You remove what's wrong, and replace it with what's right. If something's wrong, remove it and say why. If you can replace it with what's right, do it. As I say, I'm sure you were trying to be helpful and you did the right thing by coming to the talk page to discuss it. Thank you! And welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you'll be able to make many more useful contributions in future. Bonusballs (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um - "In your fourth edit you did better, but turned the paragraph into nonsense, since by editing an entry on a list of notable events to say that something did NOT happen, you make the entry look stupid." - surely it looks even more stupid if it says something happenned that didn't?? And how is what you did to my comments any better? You removed what I did (what you consider to be wrong) and replaced it with something factually incorrect. DOuble standards? Surely you should have removed my comments and put the correct information there? (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

'Comments' go on talk pages, not on articles. Spraying comments like 'some idiots seem to think this was 2012' across an article is not helpful, and any changes like that would be reverted, doesn't matter who makes them. Incidentally, can you sign your comments (end your message with four ~ characters and Wikipedia will automatically sign it for you) - likewise could you stop removing the signature from your earlier comments? If you remove them, your comments look like they're being made by the next person who replied to you. Bonusballs (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"'Comments' go on talk pages, not on articles. Spraying comments like 'some idiots seem to think this was 2012' across an article is not helpful, and any changes like that would be reverted, doesn't matter who makes them" - they weren't comments, the fact that some idiot thought something had ended when it hadn't was an event that took place in 2012, relevant to British television. As a comparison, the article about the recent "end of the world" states that people proposed something that turned out to be complete twoddle. Just as someone did here. And I wasn't referring to who made the comments - I was saying that if the rule is "correct wrong things" then you should have replaced my comments with the correct facts. (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

The rule is that if you want to correct wrong things, correct them. If you want to make comments, do that on the talk page. Writing comments in the middle of an article is not how it's done. So you'll know for next time. Thanks for your contributions. Bonusballs (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for repeating what you've already said several times. You have still avoided the point though. I accept that the rule is "correct wrong things". So why did you, when removing my comments, instead of correcting the information, deliberately put incorrect information in its place? And how is "some idiots believed the world was going to end in 2012 when it didn't" a worthy story for wikipedia but "an idiot believed something had been broadcast when it hadn't" not? (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

When someone writes abuse across the text of an article, removing that is not "deliberately putting incorrect information in its place". As it happens I'm not quite sure who you're talking to because certainly I did make some changes to this article following your "comments", and I can see that others have as well. Your point was heard, it just took longer than it should have done because you initially chose to express yourself in a way which is indistinguishable from vandalism. I don't know who put the original incorrect information into the article but I'm sure they did so with the best of intentions. Mistakes happen, the important thing is how you deal with them. Now, if you don't mind, I've been as polite as I can to you, so I think our discussion is at an end. :) Bonusballs (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I changed it to "the last episode was not broadcast", it was reverted to "it was broadcast" - that was changing something factually correct and making it factually incorrect. So that breaks the same rule as I broke in the first place. You are still cunningly avoiding the question at hand here - how is "some idiots believed the world was going to end in 2012 when it didn't" a worthy story for wikipedia but "an idiot believed something had been broadcast when it hadn't" not? Finally, we are going to have to differ in opinion on your final point - "Mistakes happen, the important thing is how you deal with them" - mistakes (or in this case someone telling an outright lie) should not happen and when they do, the person should be identified and made to correct them. (signed by James, the original poster, not someone else replying to me)

Jackanory?

Why is Jackanory listed as an ongoing series? It only aired a couple of specials back in 2006. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, and from all other years from 2007. Looks like someone added it to the list and it just got copied each year. Thanks for the heads up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Take Manhattan and Red Dwarf

The 29 September Doctor Who broadcast of "The Angels Take Manhattan" might be worth noting for featuring the final appearance of companions Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill, as well as being the first DW episode to be filmed in New York City. The return of Red Dwarf to British TV in October after a three-year hiatus since the Back to Earth miniseries (and it was also the first full-length season aired since the late 1990s) is also worth noting. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Format and/or Title

Would it be out of the question to either change the title of this Wikipedia page to "List of 2021 in British television" or make the page look more like an article? I feel like the current title is a bit misleading, as this is an article in list format, but the title does not signify that this article is a list. User:Jale1162 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]