Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/British television task force/Channels/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More4

I saved More4 from speedy deletion today, and I've added as much info as I can find. I've not added the project infobox, as most of the fields don't apply (as the channel doesn't broadcast yet). If anyone has more info for this channel, it could do with the help. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

stub

I've only just found this, so I'm guessing not many will be aware of the existence of UK-tv-stub The JPS 23:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:British television programmes

I've spent tonight sorting Category:British television programmes into subcategories. There's a bit of controversy with Category:The Prisoner. I've put it as a subcategory of Category:ITV television programmes, rather than the parent. This conforms with Category:Big Brother (UK) and several within Category:BBC television programmes.

There is absolutely no reason why The Prisoner should be a direct subcat of the parent. The JPS 23:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I can think of one of the top of my head: The Prisoner was last shown on TV by BBC Four, and before that in the 90s if I recall corectly by Channel 4. I think it was also on Sci Fi back in '00 or '01. This makes describing it as an ITV programme not entirely accurate and certainly not intuitive for anyone who has watched it on TV in the last decade. While originally shown on ITV and currently being owned by ITV plc (via Carlton, Polygram and ITC) I don't think it is now linked in peoples minds with ITV. If it were up to me, I would put it in category:ITC Entertainment Productions and move that entire cat out of ITV and into the root (ITC being the parent of ATV rather than the other way round). MrWeeble 00:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

We should concentrate upon original showings. BBC Four has reshown many ITV programmes (as part of its 'which decade is best' thing), but that doesn't qualify the article to be in the parent category. A repeat does not make it a BBC4, or Sci-Fi Channel, programme. It is a programme on BBC4.

This is the same reasoning which the category "does not include programmes made outside the UK and imported." (That statment existed before I got here a few days ago.) Just because it is shown on x channel, or whatever, doesn't make it an x programme (references to pornography accidental).

Remember that people searching for The Prisoner would ultimately do a direct search for The Prisoner, not trawl through the category system! It doesn't really matter whether or not peole think of it as an ITV programme or not. It was! The categories are not about advertising articles.

If you look at similar subcategories within Category:BBC television programmes and Category:Channel 4 television programmes, you'll see the idea.

What concerns me above anything is being unfair to fans of other shows which have subcategories. There is little doubt that The Prisoner is a highly influential aspect of British television history. My comments and category-work is not intended to diminish that.

Were all ITC programmes originally broadcast on ITV? If they were, then they should be a subcat of ITV. If not, then a subcat of the parent. The JPS 11:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Redeveloped infobox

I redevloped the infobox that was on several pages into a newer template with basicaly the same paramaters. At the time i was not aware of this project. I tentivly plan to launch the template not only on just UK pages but pages regarding nets in the ROI, hence the name of the template. I have set up a gallery, for testing purposes, at User:Boothy443/uk-roi tv net infobox for several nets. Comments are weclomed, and i have no problem with taking up the task of converting the existing channles using the current box with the new one. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the new template is cleaner and smarter than the existing one, which looks a little old fashioned. I support the change. The JPS 22:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I created the original one and it definately needs redoing as a parameter based template. Indeed I had already started work on it and my plan for this weekend was to complete it. I like this one but have a few comments about it. Some fields are not appropriate for all channels and this leaves empty lines eg S4C's cable coverage has the two blank lines, I have been trying to work out a way of using nested templates to overcome these problems, but it is a really tricky task. There are a few other fields not included:

• Replaced (which is different from "Formerly called" as sometime the entire channel identity changes eg BBC Knowledge -> BBC Four, Grandada Plus -> ITV 3, CNX -> Toonami)
• Sister Channel (ie a channel that show the same programming in a different format - Sky One -> Sky One Mix, Paramount Comedy, Paramount Comedy 2)
• Timeshift service (all the Plus one channels, though important to have as they're not all called xxx +1 e.g. Trouble has Trouble Reloaded)

Of course not all of these are appropriate for all channels meaning the dreaded blank lines. Hmmm. I'm gonna merge your one and my dabbling into one box on my talk page, see if I can overcome these "Problems" (and it is only a problem for me cos I am so anal retentive about such things) MrWeeble 12:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Done a version that uses Boothy's layout but with "optional" fields see User:MrWeeble/sandbox. In the template description you still ahve to specify all parameter, whether they are used or not and some other parameters to say what parameters to show. This makes the wikimarkup complicated but not, I think, unmanageable. The markup of the template is pretty nasty as it includes 11 other templates, but of course the point of tempaltes is that they rarely have to be edited. (NB not al fields are demonstrated on the sandbox page). Any thoughts? MrWeeble 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I like them! Cool collaboration! The JPS 16:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Have made a start going through the all the channels MrWeeble 15:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate transmission info?

Why are so many of the Freeview (digital-only AFAIK) channels listed as being "PAL-I" standard on terrestrial? Am I missing something?- I thought PAL was analogue only. This seems to apply to the new infobox channels apparently, though I don't know if it's a limitation of the design, an oversight, or my misunderstanding. Fourohfour 21:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

PAL is a method of encoding colour information in a television image. and can be used in digital signals, however the I part is certainly analogue only. I think this information would be better described in the articles on the platforms. as one channel can broadcast in many formats - eg BBC One in PAL-I, DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S, i720 on DVB-S etc etc, For this reason I have created Analogue television in the United Kingdom which contains the info for analogue channels as somewhere for the basic analogue info to go. I believe the playforms all contain links to the correct standards. I'll remove it from the template MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Stub Messages

A lot of articles for British TV channels are stubs. There does not seem to be a consistant choice in sorted stub types, being a split between {{UK-bcast-stub}} and {{TV-stub}}. The stub message that The JPS mentioned above is for programmes not channels so is not really appropriate to these articles. Should we choose one of these for all the articles or should we create a {{UK-tv-channel-stub}}? -- MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why so few stations?

Guys, I read the article on Channel 5, and it said there are only 3 privately owned and operated TV channels in Britain?!? Is that right? In the USA, there are six private television networks -- NBC, CBS, ABC, WB, UPN, Fox (I listed those in order of how much I like them, lol). So in any major city -- San Jose, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago -- you can get at least six different sources of news that are private and not controlled or funded by the government (the 1st Amendment, of course, is a written law that prevents the government from controlling speech; it is not just a tradition in America, but an actual law, part of the Constitution, the highest law in the land). This is in addition to any additional TV stations that are not affiliated with one of the networks.

So why is the Brit broadcast market so limited?!? Is it technology? :-/

Or is it the TV license? I still don't see why a citizen of a democracy would agree to a TV license, how silly. ROFL. :) =)) But then you guys are a monarchy, not a democracy...see www.republic.org.uk (I don't speak for them and they're not affiliated with me)

--Brian (the USA is better ;-) lol)

There are only three privately operated analogue terrestrial networks - and one of them (Channel 4) is also state owned. There are, however, a huge number of private operators in the digital realm, from Flextech to EMAP and BSkyB, as well as imported Viacom and similar channels. The UK (and Ireland) has never gone hugely in for large numbers of analogue broadcast channels, but I can put up a satellite dish and get 300 or so English-language, UK and Ireland targeted TV stations free of charge. Theres no limitation on the TV market. --Kiand 19:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally the way the channel space was divided up in the fifties it was planned to allow only 4 channels. the fifth had to be squeezed in. However unlike the USA, those channels are available Nationwide (excluding Channel 4/S4C which are complementary channels - one OR the other is available nationwide) so one does not have to be in a "major city", tiny villages still get the full range (sometimes excluding 5). The reason for the state ownership of the BBC is related as you say to the licence fee and the idea that the airwaves are owned by the state not the people. Myself, I like the idea of the BBC, it has definately not always taken pro-government viewpoints (see Hutton report and http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/aspidistra/bbcthatcher.htm) whereas in recent years the american media has taken a pro bush standpoint (especially Fox) even though they are privately owned. This is because, being owned by Large corporations, the major networks find that the pro-big-business stance of the Bush administration favours their own agendas. While this is of course Freedom, less conformist views (such as those in The Power of Nightmares) are left out in the cold, in Britain, these viewpoint are given a place to air, paradoxically by the very government they may be criticising. It is two approaches to the problem, letting the market decide and state-regulation to ensure that media corportations can not can exert absolute control over the airwaves. As Kiand said, most people are not restricted to the terrestrial channels, over 60% of household have access to more those channels[1], a sky viewer can see dedicated newschannels from BBC (which carries some news from ABC), ITV, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, Euronews and more; plenty of choice. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 20:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"I still don't see why a citizen of a democracy would agree to a TV license, how silly." Best go and read television licence - a better name for it would be "television tax" as that's what it is really. They are used all over the world. "But then you guys are a monarchy, not a democracy." Yeah, it's really tough over here, what with our brutal dictatorship and all, your solidarity with those of us living under the crushing yoke of royal tyranny is greatly appreciated. — Trilobite 14:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, most of Europe has TV licences, and I've never heard of a monarch in Finland, Germany, Ireland, France, Austria, Switzerland, and so on. Japan also has a TV licence, and its monarch barely counts... --Kiand 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Children's ITV television programmes

Since we have Category:BBC children's television programmes, what do you think about the creation of Category:Children's ITV television programmes too? There are articles there to populate it... The JPS 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:BBC executives

I'm trying to clean up Category:British television - it seems to be populated by BBC controllers. Do you reckon a category should be created, or they should just be put into Category:Television executive? The JPS 14:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For both of the above I reckon you should do it, I am of the opinion that if there are enough articles to make it worthwhile (say at least ten) then there is a case for a more specific category. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on British TV channels? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly can. Take a look at BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three and BBC Four. Also BBC News 24 is coming along pretty well. Wikiwoohoo 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If ITV and ITV1 are not already up to scratch, then we need to get it up to standard! Also, Granada Television is pretty good. The JPS 19:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for these, they certainly look like nice articles. I notice that mostly they are a bit short for featured article standard- is this just the topic, or do you foresee adding a lot more content? This is especially true for BBC4, will this be growing a lot? Also, do you have some "hard" literature references (academic works, peer-reviewed articles or books)? I will add BBC1, BBC2 and BBC3 into our list, please keep me posted (here) with your opinions on the others, if you think they are ready. It will be a while before we produce a CD, so we have some time. Thank you very much, keep up the good work, and keep the comments/articles coming! Walkerma 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Freeview Channel numbers change.

We should be aware that there's an EPG change on Freeview occuring tonight. (Tuesday, October 18) Many channels will be changing their number. Digital Spy have a handy list of what will be changed.[2] We should keep an eye out for when the change over is finished, and then change over the numbers in the channel's info boxes. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 13:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good idea. From my reading of that page, the changes we will be:

• BBC Four 10 → 9
• ITV3 34 → 10
• More 4 →13
• E4 +1 39 → 32
• Eurosport 49 → 33
• Setanta Sports 57 → 34
• CBBC Channel 30 → 70
• CBeebies 31 → 71
• Cartoon Network 32 → 72
• Boomerang 33 → 73
• Toonami 58 → 74
• BBC News 24 40 → 80
• ITV News Channel 41 → 81
• Sky News 42 → 82
• Sky Sports News 43 → 83
• Bloomberg 44 → 84
• BBC Parliament 45 → 85
• S4C2 13 → 86
• Community Channel 46 → 87
• Teachers' TV 47 → 88
• Television X 60 →97
• Red Hot TV 61 →98

The other changes are radio and text services. If anyone wants to go through the list tomorrow (once the changes have been made) then please mark as done on the above list.

Template

How about a template between TV channels like:

Maybe with some more channels and a different colour background? Thelb⁴ 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem might be that there are too many of them, and there's bound to be arguments over what to include. ITV already has a huge template. I could be in favour of a similar one for BBC channels... Templates can be quite a controversial issue... you take ages setting them up and putting them on the pages, then a bunch of people who have never edited these paegs before will come along and vote to delete it. The JPS 18:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I made a new one using the articles in Category:BBC television channels. Would you prefer this to the one above? Thelb⁴ 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in effect that is better. It'll be less controversial in what to include, and less likley to go to TFD. We should try to get the design as similar as possible to the ITV template. The JPS 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just completed an article listing all BBC Channels (<--That's the article) together with links to each main article. It is just like the ITV channels article in that respect. I added the template listed above and as soon as I did that, realised how many channels I'd missed out! Don't worry, I'll be adding them in soon. Could some of the members perhaps help me out with this, by adding to the brief descriptions I've made for some channels? Thanks. Wikiwoohoo 22:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to match the ITV template. Thelb⁴ 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks great, much better now that the genres are split. Wikiwoohoo 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it not missing BBC Choice? --Kiand 16:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't split the channels like that, I would bundle news24 and parlianement as "news & Current affairs" and bung choice and knowledge as closed channels. also I would put the two childrens channels into the first section not sure they deserve the prominence of a section of its own. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed per MrWeeble's suggestions. Thelb⁴ 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you could separate the channels as per the first version? Is was better with the |'s between each to keept them apart. Just a suggestion. Wikiwoohoo 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Should this be made into a real template, or does it need some more adjustments? Thelb⁴ 21:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Thelb⁴ 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I would remove the two closed channels from the UK section as they are repeated in the Closed Channels section. Otherwise Go-Go-Gadget-Template! MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)