Talk:Granada Reports

	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.

Untitled

Granada Reports must have begun before 1980. In the sixties, the local news on Granada was Scene at 6.30.

The original air date 1956 for Granada Reports is completely and utterly wrong. Whoever wrote the page has clearly done no research in to the program. It first aired to the best of my recollection in 1972.

As the previous poster indicates from 1963 to 1966, the regional news was Scene at 6.30. I think this was then renamed Scene, and then replaced by Six O One in 1970, and in 1971 this program morphed into Newsday. Then Granada Reports arrived I think in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.17.235 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Beetstra removing referenced content

Moved from WP:ANI Nobody Ent 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user Beetstra has removed referenced content from the 'Granada Reports' page and the 'Jo Blythe' page. They use the claim unreliable sources, when the source is in fact a lot more reliable than the unreferenced claims that were there previously. They have then argued they are right claiming incorrect Wikipedia guidelines and gone on to do the same thing numerous times. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop caring so much where someone was born and if they're on maternity leave. It's unbecoming. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the IP on this one. Since these are confirmed accounts from the reporters of ITV, it is almost as if the person (in this case, the reporters) is confirming the information for us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: That is what we are here to do, to care enough to update a page with correct information (like places of birth) so we have a better, more concise encyclopedia...or have you forgotten that? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth, yes. Relying on a link to a twitter feed, not even a specific tweet? No. The maternity leave? No. Coming to ANI for it? Absolutely not. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer and the IP. It must be notable that the maternity leave is only reported by their own Twitter. Even the network itself does not have that information, nor is it in any other news. We are not writing a news service here, or similar. WP:NOT, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the UK, but here in the US, it is rare for reporters/anchors of the major networks or the local TV stations to get airtime (and a story on the station/network's website) about a reporter/anchor going on materity leave. It happens too often, so station's don't post about it. But, reporters/anchors do post about it on their Twitter or Facebook accounts or on their blogs. Since the Twitter accounts are confirmed, it is a highly reliable source. But I will give you the "non-notability" of a leave of absence, but a place of birth is very notable (since all BLPs have them). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite cryptic again. Yes, birthplace is notable, that is true. I did look for 'Gloucestershire', but did not find it. Moreover, the link is to the thread, which hides the information. I should have looked at every single post and recognised that 'glos' would (or could) stand for Gloucestershire. Sorry, I should here have looked better and updated the ref. I find it still a risky ref (unclear, and twitter accounts are not always what they appear to be), and there are better places to source this (the real birth data .. though that maybe not as accessible as twitter).

I know that networks don't always tell what is actually happening on their site - which is already an indication of notability of the fact. It might however be that the network site says that a reporter is on leave (for unspecified reasons).

Just as a side-note, the IP still did not inform me of this thread (though it is moot, since I am here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: the 'Wow, that is quite cryptic again' was not aimed at Neutralhomer, I had just read the Twitter feed again before writing the reply, because I was not understanding that I missed that fact on the original removal - the Twitter post indeed mentions Gloucestershire, but has 'encrypted' it as 'glos'. An oversight from my side. Sorry for the misunderstanding and badly arranged reply, Neutralhomer. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source which, while not disallowed, is highly discouraged. Second is the maternity leave itself notable? I'd say not, if the only source is her Twitter feed. That's what makes it seem tabloid-ish. We don't need to pounce on this right away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. still not really a WP:RS (seems a bit fan-page-ish), but http://www.oocities.org/cbjoblythe3/joblythe_questions.html this confirms Gloucestershire. At least not self published. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a problem with using a self published bio to confirm where/when someone was born - in most cases (unless they've knocked ten years off their age) - if you're sure it's them. Never been happy with using Twitter as a source though - it's so...throwaway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity leave? Really? Drmies (talk)

It gets worse. This was one of the references. This was another. Continued, no doubt, at AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular Granada News/Reports viewer I was unsure whether Keri Eldridge was still on maternity leave or whether she had left to become a full time mum. The recent Twitter mention confirmed this. Not noting the fact that Ms Eldridge is on maternity leave could led another user to come along and say that she's not done Daybreak bulletins in months and to remove her from the list of reporters/presenters when she has not left.

I am very confused why Jo Blythe's Wikipedia page is now been considered for deletion when it contains references from the Leeds Metropolitan University website (an independent reliable source) and the official ITV website. It seems to me the problem is someone living in the Netherlands is trying to edit pages of British journalists and news programs without really knowing anything about them. Epm-84 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't really the place for up-to-the-minute biographical information on TV celebrities, especially when such information hasn't been confirmed through "official" channels. It's not so critical that we get to waive verifiability on the matter (especially for a BLP).

The Jo Blythe article's deletion rationale is explained quite well in the discussion. As to people from the Netherlands editing British articles... Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Honestly, it's not essential that an editor "knows anything about them" since we don't accept original research. Information added to Wikipedia should be derived from reliable sources, so whether or not an editor has personal knowledge about a subject isn't nearly as important as what a person can research and cite. That's how this project works. -- Atama頭 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Epm-84. First of all, I did live in the UK for quite some time, and I am actually not living anymore in the Netherlands either at the moment. As if that would, in any form, hinder what I would or would not know about a subject or what Wikipedia should say about that subject. And do note that I was not the one suggesting to delete the page about Jo Blythe. It is not like that people from Gloucestershire, or from the UK are owning pages on subjects in their range.

And there is nothing wrong with reverting someone who removes her altogether with the remark 'she is on maternity leave, see twitter-post' - It is just not appropriate information in the page itself, as it is just not encyclopedic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE: Ongoing vandalism re on air team section

Incorrect information as to who the main presenters of the programme are and any other trivial text will be removed. The accurate main presenters are now referenced (22 October 2013). This is Drew (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Meacock hasn't presented Granada Reports on a Friday for years. Ann O'Connor stands in most commonly.. Therefore, she is the "Main" presenter on a Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnicoll123 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ann O'Connor is a correspondent and stand-in presenter - as is Elaine Wilcox and Rachel Townsend - therefore it is suitable to list all under the correspondents table with the related notes indicating they are also a stand-in presenter. It is correct to say that Lucy Meacock does not present Friday editions of Granada Reports, neither does Christine Talbot of Calendar, Becky Jago does not present Wednesday editions of ITV News Anglia. This is Drew (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Further to This is Drew's comments, I completely agree. Some of the incessant edits about on air presenters and reporters is nigh on pointless and unencyclopedic. Who needs to know that Ben Sheppard introduces the breakfast bulletins via a pre-record or when Mike Hall is returning? (even if they are hidden edits!)

This can all be done in a far less cluttered, simpler manner as on other pages for ITV regional news. Hughpugh 13:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)