Talk:ITV Play

Infobox not working

The infobox on the ITV Play article doesn't seem to be displaying many bits of information, including the launch date, which although is there when you edit the page, does not appear on the saved article. Anyone with any technical knowledge know why? Sonic 08:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the launch date. The only problem with infoboxes is that the name before the equals sign has to be the exact same as it explains here. Otherwise the date, for example, won't appear on the page. In other words, if it isn't the correct name (eg. 'launch' instead of 'launched') then the box presumes nothing is typed. --AntzUK 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't the views of Gamcare et al - vulnerable people spending 60 quid a night, etc. - be given some space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.8 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 May 2006

I think this sort of thing, with verifiable research would be better placed in an article based on the whole genre of participation quiz shows (which ironically doesn't have its own article nor appears in the Game show article), rather than on one channel, it wouldn't be fair to single out one channel because of what seems to be the bad behaviour of a few channels.

And a bit of advice if I may, please sign off your message with four tildes (e.g -- ~~~~) which will place your username and the time and date after your message. It's helpful to other people to see who wrote what. Thanks. Sonic 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after checking, there is a very small article on it under Quiz channel, so anything should go there rather than in this article. Sonic 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

I have been reading through some of the descriptions of the shows and a few things are now starting to sound like an advertisement for ITV Play, which need cleaning up. --tgheretford (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Have added the advert tag to the top of the article. This article is becoming more and more of an advertisement every day, some of it even edge near Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - CSD G11. --tgheretford (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, if this wasn't for the fact this article was notable, I would nominate it for AfD. But this article really needs a major cleanup. I have added it to the list at Wikipedia:Cleanup#December 3, 2006 --tgheretford (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this article there and did some cleanup. --Banana04131 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. There is still some work needs to be done on it though, especially from someone who has knowledge of ITV Play, and can reword the article to not sound like an advertisement. --tgheretford (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violation?

“ It could be said that ITV Play exploits poorer, less educated viewers whose chances of winning money on the various shows are far lower than in many other forms of gambling. ”

1. Seems unfair to make that statement about ITV Play, when the criticisms of this and other quiz channels have already been made neutrally in the Quiz channel article;
2. Same could (and has) be said for any other quiz channel. --tgheretford (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My concerns within the article

• The wording of many of the shows, and especially the way that the times of when the shows are on is displayed is possibly a violation of WP:SPAM guidelines, especially for ITV Playalong, why does the show times need to be in bold?

• Done some work, needs more work doing to it from an expert though. (--tgheretford (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

• The addition of so many fair use images in the article which fails section 8 of Wikipedia fair use policy, which doesn't add to the prose of the article;
• PlayDJ, which fails WP:NOT#CBALL, especially as it is unverifiable. Once information can be found and sources cited, it can be re-added to the article; - done (--tgheretford (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC))
• Spellchecking; - already done;
• The article does not cite its sources, apart from the criticism section (which I added anyway!) - I'll tag the article accordingly.

I'm showing this list of concerns so that people can discuss it, before I make major changes to this article to drag it back to a respectable article. --tgheretford (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent

This article needs a large header with critiscisms. People are getting into debt by calling these shows, you have a very small chance of getting through and an even smaller chance of winning the money on 'puzzles' such as 'add the numbers'. Magnoliapaint 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a small bit of information regarding ITV Play on the quiz channel article, though there isn't much verifiable or reliable sources of criticism on ITV Play. The investigations from the Gambling Commission, Ofcom and ICSTIS shouldn't be included in the article because they apply to all quiz channels. --tgheretford (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not more strongly disagree with the majority of what has been said at the top of this section. To fill the article with critisms would bias it greatly and not represent a neutral viewpoint. How many calls a participant chooses to make and the decision to call in or even to watch these shows is made by the participant. To put a quote like 'ITV Play gets people into debt' would be unfair on ITV Play and unjust. Personally I wouldn't want any critisms section at all as I think ITV Play has acted tottaly fairly but if we are to indulge the critics then it's content should be respresentative of a moderate critics line of thought and should not just become a place to get at ITV Play. General critisms should be sourced under a more encompassing page. Error96 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people enjoy participating in this sort of quiz. Also general critisms shouldn't be directed at one channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Error96  (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 October 2007

Make New Page

Shouldn't a new page be made, illustrating games,and transfer the presenter descriptions onto that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan11 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2006

Yes there should but I've no idea how to do it --Jameseuk 01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)jameseuk

What is happening to this page?

What is happening to this page? The logos have been deleted, which brighten up the page. These do not violate the rules. The times in italics have gone which are handy and easy to pick out for viewers. This article is meant to be informative and neutral. I can understand some angry people who don't like this method of winning, but they are stopping this guide being informative. Show times and logos are not violating any rules. Why delete them? People with strong views are ruining this article. Quick and easy information is hard to find, which it shouldn't be. The critisicms, cost and rules are clear, so why make this article rubbish? How can you write truthfully about a show and not partially advertise. People try to write neutrally. The bad points are labelled clearly, yet the good points are not, because people call that advertising. I have given up updating this article which is in a great mess, not because of not being neutral, but because of messy information and no logos. This needs sorting out, as I have tried to do, and NOT changed after it's done!!! As a result, I have added this article to the clean-up list, so please vote for it! Aleksander Shilling 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the images, they violate sections 8 and 9 of Wikipedia fair use policy for images. Section 8 states that, and I quote:

“ The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. ”

In my eyes, the logos concerned do not illustrate points within the text and serve only to, and I quote from yourself "brighten up the page".

Section 9, and the more serious issue I have with the images, and the same reason as to why they were removed from the ITV channels article by an administrator, states as follows:

“ Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine... ”

The only fair use image that should be used in this article is the ITV Play logo. The other images that were used, although are ITV Play programmes, do not belong within this namespace, because this article isn't specifically about the programme concerned, it is about the channel and nothing else. The images I deleted are not covered by fair use and could land Wikipedia in a lot of legal trouble.

I knew when I did some clean-up last night (what I cleaned up last night isn't even the start of what needs to be done (and someone else from the British TV channels Wikiproject agreed with me this article needs a major clean-up), it would be controversial and there would be a backlash, but it violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:FAIR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE, that have to be addressed sooner or later if this article is to be encyclopedic. I agree that the article needs major clean-up and it be added to that list, I wish I had thought of that! --tgheretford (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The airing times for the shows violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:SPAM - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. I too removed them for those reasons. They advertise the shows concerned and have no encyclopedic value. We wouldn't have an article on ITV1 with the times of every single show that appeared on there, it would be unworkable, hard to update and be uneneyclopedic (as explained above). That's what TV Guides are designed for. --tgheretford (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise that having the logos was wrong - it just seemed common sense to keep them. Aleksander Shilling 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Table to summarize Defunct Shows information

Im thinking of making a table to summarize all the information about the defunct shows, which will contain things like presenters, start and end dates, times and channels it was shown on. Any aditional information can go into the shows own articles. This will make this area alot tidier. What does everyone think of this idea? --Marky7890 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ITV suspending all premium rate competitions

ITV are suspending all premium rate competitions from 6/3/07, which means ITV Play will not be broadcasting. [1]. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ^►talk_►guests 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ITV To Close ITV Play Channel

On 13 March 2007 ITV decided to close the ITV Play channel. ITV Play on ITV1 and ITV2 is uneffected. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.64.112 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 March 2007

Removal of comments from page plus split suggestion from comments

I removed some comments from 81.158.134.115 to this talk page, as below:

“ This page relates to the TV CHANNEL "ITV PLAY" any future rebranding will require a new page.

NOTE: If users want to change ITV Play TV Channel to a show, MAKE A NEW PAGE as you are deleting the ITV TV CHANNEL page. ITV Play TV Channel is finished. It existed and is noted here. ITV Play Brand still lives on as of this moment. Whether ITV will still call it ITV Play due to all the negative publicity remains to be seen

”

From this, I have added a split tag to the page, and changes should be discussed on this page, not within article namespace. --tgheretford (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use a subdivision in the ITV Play article - ITV Play#Channel and ITV Play#Brand and then use second-level headings on them? Unfortunately, ITV Play as a brand is still in existence so we can't very well delve this article straight into past tense. As I did previously, the TV Channel infobox needs to be removed at some point also, however it could be included alongside a subheading in the ITV Play article for the ex-channel. In my opinion, there's not enough information to split the article into two. It's not really a programme so we can't use a programme infobox. A similar situation exists in CBBC / CITV I believe, but since both of them have active dedicated channels, it could not apply to ITV Play. /Marbles 13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

as the anon person who typed the "NOTE: If users want to change ITV Play TV Channel to a show, MAKE A NEW PAGE as you are deleting the ITV TV CHANNEL page." the current version by RETFORD is ok, the MARBLES guy deleting ITV PLAY CHANNEL is wrong & he removed a lot of the controversial bits. I'm happy with what there is now. ITV play channel is finished. ITV Play brand lives as 2 late night shows. They may be rebranded away from the controversial name. We have to wait & see. Denying the existence of the Channel as MARBLES did is badly wrong. The ITV Brand as exists now is a seperate thing & could change further. The main show Make Your Play with Alex & Ben is on tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.134.115 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 March 2007

ITV Play as a channel is dead thankfully, yes we know. Infact if you actually read the article, I simply reorganised information under other categories, and information was added, not taken away. When writing an article, (IMO) you use what is CURRENT about the topic first, then go on about PAST items. As such, the article opened by saying "ITV Play is a brand... etc", however the following paragraphs go into much detail about the ex-channel "It was also a 24-hour...etc". You may also be interested to know that I could consider your unverified comment as a personal attack, and would be possible to report to administrators. Nothing had been denied - all information was there and present, simply in a more structured and simple method. /Marbles 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The end of the ITV Play channel was tremendous shame. ITV Play on ITV1 has nothing of the Quizmania and The Mint type flare. I think that the ITV Play channel page is needed to inform people of the shows that were once shown on this channel. You can't remove sections from a History textbook and leave just this year's stuff and think it tell the whole story. The whole story of ITV should be on both ITV Play articles. ITV Play encompassed Quizmania, The Mint, Glitterball, Play DJ, ITV Playalong etc They happened and were significant to the ITV brand so they should be there. It also shouldn't be reorganised in a way that hides information from those who want to see it ~~.Error96 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Shows

This section is essential to the article. When I think of the ITV Play Brand I think of Quizmania, The Mint and Glitterball. They were shown on ITV1 under the ITV Play name and not just on the ITV Play Channel. Error96 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article ITV Play is about the brand on ITV1 and ITV2. ITV Play (channel) is funnily enough about the channel. There is no logic behind your editing to the ITV Play article at all. I don't want to get into a revert war, see WP:1RR#One-revert_rule. Please, think about what your doing. It just doesn't make any sense.
GMc^talk 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ITV Play logo.png

The image Image:ITV Play logo.png 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. --22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "ITV Play"

• ITV Play (channel) → ITV Play (move) – The ITV Play article is available, making it easier to include all aspects of the ITV Play brand (used on the ITV Network, as well as the seperate channel) GMc (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ITV Playalong/Play DJ

Just to let other users know that Play DJ did not replace Playalong. Playalong was continued to be used late-night/early morning before ITV Play "started-up" with their first programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benriggers (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 November 2012

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ITV Play (channel) → ITV Play – Unnecessary disambiguation - title already redirects here. Unreal7 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support; no need to disambiguate. Could even be an uncontroversial technical move. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• That's odd. Checked out the redirect's history--why would someone move TO a parenthesized title? Speedy support, of course Red Slash 05:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've run across an editor or two who seems to think a disambiguator should be present in every title. --BDD (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I fixed it!

i recently fixed the avalibility infobox by adding (brackets) to it.Unlike which editor forgot to add the (brackets) on the infobox. Tommy Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)