Jump to content

Talk:ABC Television (Australian TV network)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Renaming of article

I proposed on the ABC1 discussion article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ABC1 and have had two wikipedian that the current "ABC1" article should be renamed "ABC1 (UK)" as it is less important (as the channel is no longer operational) after that the current "ABC TV" article should be renamed "ABC1" do you agree? Samualm (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I have now moved the 'ABC1' page to 'ABC1 (United Kingdom)', however the article should remain at 'ABC TV' until the official relaunch has taken place. Stickeylabel (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes I agree that we should wait until it is officially relaunched which I think according to ABC News is the 8th of February. Samualm (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ABC TV Channel

Article modified to change ABC TV from a Network to a channel. This was done, as ABC TV is not a network, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is. ABC TV is merely a channel carried on the network. As most content on the page reflects the channels programming, I believe that the article is best formatted similar to how BBC One is.--Stickeylabel 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ABC TV is a television network in itself, due to broadcasting on multiple television stations in varied geographic locations.--cj | talk 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyberjunkie, I think your getting mixed up between ABC Television, the section of the ABC that manages TV broadcasting and TV transmitters, and ABC-TV the channel. ABC Television is a network that broadcasts two channels ABCTV and ABC2. The article ABC TV, is about the channel, and not ABC Television as a whole. I have spoken to the ABC themselves, and have researched this on the internet (See List of Australian television channels). I, and many other individuals who are in the industry believe that ABCTV is a channel. Please remember that it is ABC Television who operate the transmittters, and a state-based ABCTV and a national ABC2 are broadcast on it. ABC Television on analogue only broadcasts ABCTV, however on digital ABC Television broadcasts ABCTV, ABC2, ABCHD, and various radio stations. I think it's best to keep the channel seperate from the network. For instance, the Seven Network is a Network that broadcasts one primary channel, and that is Channel 7. However the ABC broadcasts more than one channel. Please reply soon. --Stickeylabel 05:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As a solution to this issue, I have started an ABC Television (Australia) article on wikipedia, which can handle all network information, leaving the ABC TV article for the channel itself. I have set up the article to allow the ABC to be organised more similarly to how the BBC's articles are organised with British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Television, and BBC One. --Stickeylabel 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. The corporation shouldn't be confused with the channel. ABC operates many broadcasting platforms, so it's neccesary to make it clear that those platforms form the "network". --Smacca 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Blank Logos

In the past 24 hours I have placed this message within the top of the Logo section of this article: "Do not add blank logos, or links to non-uploaded logos, to this gallery. Please only add logos that have an accompanied uploaded image. Thanks."

However people still persist to change the article adding blank logos again. It is un-nessarcery to have an image placeholder for a logo that no users are able to upload. If they are, I encourage them to upload the logo. This is no just an issue with this article, but with many articles for other australian television networks/channels. People persist to keep adding blank logo placeholders. What can be done to ensure that users don't in future add blank logo placeholders?Stickeylabel 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Channel 2"

Can we get it written in here somewhere that ABC Television is sometimes informally referred to as "Channel 2"? 216.82.251.227 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point (done).timgraham 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Schedule

What constitutes the "usual primetime schedule"? I would assume that it would be anything that is on more than once (i.e. a series). When I added Incredible Journeys and The Pursuit of Excellence (both of which are series currently showing) they were changed to read "Documentaries". How are they different from other series, like New Tricks or Wire in the Blood, that air occasionally on the ABC? Frickeg 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2008 logo has been placed in the infobox, but others delete it again. I think it is reasonable to use the new logo. ABC management is currently doing radio and news interviews. ABC management has announced that this is the new logo for 2008. We have it. We should use it.Lester 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the logo from the top of page it is not yet abc tv logo Samualm (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Samualm. Well, it is now the new logo. While it has it's TV debut in a few days, it's already being published in multiple other forms, and in just about every newspaper in the country. If it was some kind of secret, I'd say don't use it. But the ABC management is promoting how wonderful it is on various news bulletins and other media. So, because it's being used all over the place, and promoted by the ABC itself, that makes it fair game. Lester 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The channel's on-air identity/brand has not yet changed. When it is called "ABC1" will be then when this article should be changed to reflect. Just because it is in newspapers does not mean it is yet in effect; turn the TV on and you will see the Lissajous curve. The only reason why ABC management are doing media interviews is to deny reports (by The Australian) and hype that the Lissajous curve is to be replaced.  SEO75 [talk] 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the ABC management have also been doing the rounds discussing their new logo.Lester 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you may find that, whilst yes the ABC have been discussing the new logo, they have had to only because of an inaccurate report in today's Australian, picked-up by other outlets.  SEO75 [talk] 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were to watch ABC TV you would notice that they are still using the same logo as normal the channels name is still ABC TV and the new logo and name WILL NOT come into affect until the 8th of Febuary 2008 after that time feel free to put the new logo up. Samualm (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what I said. :)  SEO75 [talk] 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You may as well let it happen, as ABC1 is now getting lots of publicity (outside the ABC) and it will be almost impossible to hold back to the tide of those adding the new information. Hence the latest name change. I think it's better to let it happen. If it worries you, you can put a "new event" tag at the top. But everyone's going to be putting info and content in here now the cat is out of the bag. Lester 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lester i'm pretty sure that you are the only one putting up the new logo which is inaccurate to do you can put information up about the up and coming relaunch but putting up the future logo is incorrect. Samualm (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It doesn't help to accuse others of sock puppetry. You don't explain why you think it's "incorrect". The logo is now in the public sphere. It hit the media today, intended or not. I can't see any justification for removing the new logo from bottom of page, which was labelled "2008 future logo".Lester 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The logo isn't inaccurate it is obvious this will become abc1's logo (but we must still wait for it to become the official logo before "it is the logo". The way i see it you should rename this article abc1 because the abc has said (when trying to convince the public that they are not going to get rid of the "worm" many times in their news) that the logo was to differentiate abc1 from abc2 also implying that abc tv referred to the Australian broadcasting corporation's television division as a whole meaning that both abc 1 and 2 fall under "abc tv".

Of course we should just wait until it is officially announced as this is Wikipedia, not some blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.98.191 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the top of the page. Samualm (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"But everyone's going to be putting info and content in here now the cat is out of the bag." Unfortunately "everyone is doing it" isn't a good reason to just let it happen. If it is happening consistently, then protect the article. IMO the correct thing to do is to leave the current logo the infobox, and put a referenced comment about the future new logo in the "logos" section. -- Chuq (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a referenced paragraph in the 2000s section about the channel rebranding (as well in the ABC Television (Australia) and Australian Broadcasting Corporation articles earlier today).  SEO75 [talk] 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please put the current logo on the top of page and the correct future logo. Samualm (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samualm (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bigger question that needs to be asked is if ABC 1 gets to be included then why not every channel within the ABC network? My understanding is that the logos in this section are of the ABC Network over the years, not every ABC channel (tv, radio or online). It is also misleading because it suggests that the Lissajous curve is bing dumped. ABC revamps squiggle logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]])

Just for clarification:
So ABC1 would be included because that is what the ABC TV article is about. It is just confusing because for forty years they only had one channel. -- Chuq (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok if someone has access to the ABC 2 logo then that should also be placed along side ABC 1 logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.152.212 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article isn't about ABC2. -- Chuq (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebranding

The rebrand has now happened - I see the article has been moved, and some links fixed. Just a reminder - it is possible that links to ABC TV may actually be referring to ABC Television, not ABC1. An example I have just come across was "... the ABC TV program Media Watch ..." - the program is not produced by one channel, it is produced by the ABC's television division, hence ABC Television is the correct target. There may be many more like this. -- Chuq (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note also that programs broadcast prior to 8 February 2008 aired on ABC TV and not ABC1. So, Countdown, This Day Tonight, SeaChange, The Aunty Jack Show, Frontline etc. should either be left as redirect or pipe the link as follows: [[ABC1|ABC TV]] Cheers. Ianblair23 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo that is presently on the page: Image:ABC1.svg is wrong because it is only half the new logo. The correct logo is: Image:ABC1 logo.gif.

I'll go ahead and change the logo. --WikiCats (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning for reverting. --WikiCats (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Your suggestion that the Lissajous figure logo is not part of the ABC1 logo is wrong. You have said "The channel logo should only be present on the ABC1 and ABC2 articles." Do you have a reference that your logo is the correct logo for ABC1? --WikiCats (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

After some browsing of the ABC website, I haven't found a single instance where the logo doesn't include the lissajous figure, either beside the ABC1 wordmark or under it. The box with the lissajous figure should definitely be considered a part of the logo and therefore this page should use the logo with the lissajous figure to comply with the Wikipedia logo guidelines. Väsk (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the new logo should be put up. Samualm (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samualm (talk • contribs) 08:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be general agreement that the second logo is the correct logo. --WikiCats (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now updated the ABC1 and ABC2 logos as per the consensus reached. Stickeylabel (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


The correct logo is the second logo as it is the one that appears at most times on ABC1 as a watermark in the bottom right of the screen.

It is also the logo that appears on this page [2] describing the change over. --WikiCats (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats, I have sourced both logos as per WP:FU, [3] [4], so their usage on the article is accurate. Also, both versions of the logo are used, online and on-air. For presentational purposes I have chosen the horizontal version, similarly that the ABC have for their own website banners. Also, a channel's watermark shouldn't be used as the basis for its logo on Wikipedia, the print or online versions should be used. Examples include WIN Television and Network Ten, which have different watermarks to their printed logo. I hope this issue can be settled now that the lissajous figure has been added to the logo. Thanks :). Stickeylabel (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiCats, if you watch ABC1 you will see that both logos are technically correct. The vertical logo is used in idents and in the watermark, but the horizontal logo is just as accepted and is used in the ender of ABC News and on the ABC1 website. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Both horizontal and vertical versions of the logo are being used by the ABC at present. However, the current horizontal version is more suitable for the infobox than the vertical as its dimensions are more appropriate for the logo space. -- Smacca | Talk 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:TheChaser-FullTeam.jpg 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ABC4?

I never thought there was an ABC4. I did a rescan yesterday (for no reason) and came up with the usual:

  • 2 - ABC1
  • 20 - ABC HDTV
  • 21 - ABC1
  • 22 - ABC2
  • 23 - ABC3 (with the static screen)
  • 200 - ABC DiG Music
  • 201 - ABC Jazz

Is this a mistake? --The Strikester 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This page needs an "ABC Controversies" or "ABC Criticisms" Header as the article reads as if it were an organisation without error.

Most other news organisations have a "criticisms" section so why not the ABC? See below for list:

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Controversies (speaks of bias and scandals); -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Controversies_associated_with_Al_Jazeera (speaks of bias and controversy on a country-by-country basis); -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Criticism_and_controversies (has a whole page dedicated);

Typically, the way wiki has dealth with most other organisations is to make mention of controversy in high-level and then have a whole page dedicated to it elsewhere as a link in wiki to a new wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embritts (talk • contribs) 06:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ABC (Australian TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ABC (Australian TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ABC (Australian TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ABC_Television_(Australian_TV_network)/Archive_1&oldid=1127065339"