Talk:ITV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pending tasks for ITV:

 edit - history - watch - purge
  • Move article into narrative instead of list after list
  • Move more content into History of ITV leaving a succinct summary in this article (and copyedit that one)
  • Programmes section could become own list article
  • ITV companies: past and present could become own article - lots of repetition with the article main content
  • Make the current situation more prominent in the article not split up / stuck at the bottom
  • Clearly explain the structure/difference of ITV network and ITV plc
  • Adding a paragraph about ITV Schools
  • Criticisms of ITV section ("dumbing down", populism, reality TV, etc.)

Contents

[edit] Hit Rock Bottom!

ITV have hit rock bottom with their programming. I don't even watch ITV anymore. Why do they use such AWFUL music during links? (ITV Logo + Music + some stupid scene). One piece of music goes "EEEOOORR EEEOOORRR" in a really high pitched singing voice .... sounds awful :-(

Can someone please put ITV out of its misery .....

You do hear more and more stories these days of how ITV is becoming unpopular. Maybe there should be something about this.--Santahul 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

[edit] Map

The map looks bizarre. Where are the Scottish Islands? --Augustusr 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that, where are the Channel Islands? A big square that says 'Channel' doesn't count. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is able to fix it, sort out Northen Ireland, County Fermanagh is not that big, Thanks. theKeith 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put up an adapted version now, with the Hebrides (though not Orkney or Shetland due to space issues), a modified Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands represented by a map, and using the colours of the 4 main ITV channels (I found the colours in the old one made my eyes bleed). Hopefully this version should be good enough, though if there's any issues let me know and I'll change it. --Daduzi talk 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does STV extend over Grampian's area on that map? I know SMG have rebranded both Scottish & Grampian to STV but they are still officially separate ITV franchise, the opposite to HTV, which is run as two services, ITV1 Wales & ITV 1 West, but is in reality one franchise and quite rightly displayed as such on that map.

I agree. It isn't accurate to show STV as one area, as that doesn't reflect the regional news/current affairs, etc the former Grampian still broadcasts. It would make more sense to have two coloured areas both marked 'STV'. Confusing, maybe, but more accurate than the current map. Also, sorry to be picky, but if the Channel Islands can be in their own boxes, why not Orkney and Shetland, just to the top left? --Stevouk 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Orkneys were left out because (AFAIK) they don't have their own fanchise, so it didn't seem worth including them just for completeness' sake. As to the STV/Grampian thing, if someone can dig up a decent quality (ie not .jpg) map showing the borders of the two I'll upload a new version. --Daduzi talk 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are using the old names - why "London" instead of "Carlton/LWT"? PMA 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

The "See also" section is way too long, and it duplicates links found in the article body. Could someone please do a cleanup here? Punkmorten 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 3

On the subject of better specifying the difference between ITV Network and ITV plc, would this perhaps be an idea: To retitle the article 'Channel 3', which is the official name given by Ofcom (while still redirecting from 'ITV Network' and simply 'ITV')? I realise that nobody calls the network 'Channel 3' save Ofcom, but the advantages of this are that (a) it's technically more accurate, (b) it will allow us to introduce the concept of the ITV Network as a less 'official' name (or as a subsection of Channel 3) and thus to remove the ambiguity of the article title as opposed to ITV plc, and (c) make the content regarding the breakfast and teletext providers more appropriate, since technically GMTV and Teletext are indeed part of the 'Channel 3' providers but cannot really be described as part of the ITV Network, which only describes the regional licenses - rather they are national services. I propose 'Channel 3' as the main title, followed by subtitles for the 'regional Channel 3 network' (which could link to a separate ITV Network article if necessary?), the breakfast provider and the teletext provider, followed by a heading for 'Digital Channel 3', which is currently not mentioned as it also is not part of the Network.

Or is all this just pedantry? ;) Your thoughts, please! (In the meantime I've attempted to edit the introductory paragraph to state that it is the Network being discussed in this article, rather than ITV plc). —This unsigned comment was added by WizardT (talk • contribs) .

I agree: the use of the ITV name by ITV plc has led to a lot of confusion. If the current article is moved to Channel 3, maybe the new ITV article could be used as a disambiguation page - pointing to ITV plc and the new Channel 3 article? --Marknew 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Completely disagree for one major reason, ITV is no longer one channel. Channel 3 is Ofcom's title for what we call ITV1. If you move this article to the Channel 3 article, you'll be putting ITV back as a singular channel along with ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV Channel, ITV Play, Men And Motors and anything else they have under the banner of ITV. That, to me, would make the new article even more confusing than this one already is. We need to find another way to avoid the confusion. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Independent Television (ITV)
[[Image:Itvcorp.png|125px| ]]
Type Broadcast television network
Country United Kingdom
Availability National
Founder none
Owner ITV Network
Key people Charles Allen, CEO
Sir Peter Burt, Chairman
Launch date September 22, 1955 (Associated-Rediffusion); other franchises followed later
Website www.itv.com

Since infoboxes are the in thing now, I though I'd offer up this to possibly go at the top of the page, given that most other broadcasters have a similar box. I've filled in all the details I could, all that's empty is the past_names field (which isn't relevant) and the slogan field, since I'm not aware of any current slogan for the company. --Daduzi talk 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One slight problem, its not owned by ITV plc, its owned by the ITV Network. ITV plc just happen to own far and away most of the franchises. --Kiand 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed it, thanks for the info. --Daduzi talk 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I went ahead and added the infobox (which I'll confess I forgot all about) --Daduzi talk 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Programming Schedule

Does there need to be what looks like a copy of the listings for this week on this article? I can appreciate why someone's added it, but it's likely to get old very quickly. doktorrob™ 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It was removed very quickly. Overenthusiastic anons and new editors are not a surprise on subjects like this one. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Programme dating?

I've noticed that several of ITV's older programmes have had their copyright dates changed to more recent years. For example, a number of the older Agatha Christie's Poirots made in the late eighties/early nineties have been appearing with copyright dates of as late as 2005 & 2006 at the end of the programme. In some other programmes the whole end-credits have been changed, e.g., Inspector Morse, again with much later copyright dates. Anyone know anything about this? - I know that ITV was criticised a while back for not making enough new programmes but this seems decidedly iffy. Ian Dunster 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for ITV plc?

I notice UTV and SMG both have category boxes for their pages. Should one for ITV plc be adopted? Marbles333 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to take all the ITV plc stuff out of the current template, to make it a Channel 3 box. UTV Internet and Virgin Radio are not on Template:ITV so why is ITV3 and Men and Motors?   Keithology  Talk!  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Because we here are experts on ITV, but general viewers of the channel(s) and readers of the encyclopedia are not. We have to think of what our customers (and they are the readers, not the editors) expect of a navigation box. Do they expect everything - Virgin, UTV Internet etc - or do they expect the basics - the on-air names? Or do they want something inbetween? Do we need a List of ITV-related subjects and link to that? The BBC has one... ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just made a quick one based on the SMG one, see here. Marbles333 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITV Franchise Area Changes from December 4

From December, for the formation of ITV Thames Valley, HTV West and Central are changing their franchise areas, as as far as I can gather:

  • Hannington Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Meridian West)
  • Oxford Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Central South)
  • Ridge Hill Tx will be going to ITV West (switching from Central South)

So concluding this, I have made a quick (shoddy!) idea on what the new franchise areas will look like for December (it's a rough guide made in MS Paint on the new boundaries based on those transmitters' coverage maps, its not official, and new region is shaded in Pink):

Click for image

When we know more about the region, I daresay the author of ITVmap.jpg can edit it accordingly (and unfortunately will have to re-colour coordinate it all over again! Marbles333 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not a "franchise" though, its just a sub region that happens to be made up from two franchises. Do we have Central South and Meridian West on the franchise map? No... --Kiand 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So there you're arguing that people who will be in the Thames Valley broadcast area will be watching Central South for example? It's been confirmed ITV Thames Valley will become a brand in its own right, and will not be connected on-air in any way to Meridian, Central or HTV (and therefore not a subregion of them), and those who fall in its broadcast footprint will recieve "ITV1 (Thames Valley)", not "ITV1 Meridian" or "ITV1 Central". The Meridian West sub-region and Central South sub region are being merged into ITV Thames Valley, and HTV West's broadcast area will be extended to cover the Ridge Hill transmitter. See Media Guardian Article another Media Guardian Article and Digital Spy discussion. Officially, I can't see it having an Ofcom-issued license, but on-air it will appear as a region in its own right. Anyway, be it real or not real, the surrounding franchises are changing their broadcast area. Nice rhetorical question Marbles333 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where the "argument" is, its not a franchise so it should not appear on a franchise map. If the actual legal franchise boundaries change, that should be noted on the map, but it is not a franchise. --Kiand 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean the franchise map. There's one which displays the on-air names on the ITV article which is not official (as it uses "STV", "London" and "Wales"/"West" as appose to their legal identity). Apologies for the confusion. Marbles333 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITV: Time for a reorganisation?

Just looking around the articles on ITV, I cant help thinking the whole lot is a bit of a confused mess. There seems to be some confusion among editors as to the different terms and names that are used and what they mean in different contexts. There is also a lot of duplication all over the place. For example, IMHO, both ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) are practically duplications of this article. Both History of ITV and ITV plc carry news of the NTL take-over. I think perhaps it is time for a reorganisation?

I realise that ITV is immensly complicated which makes deciding the structure difficult. However, to get the ball rolling, IMHO:

  • ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) should merge into ITV (this article). A page that discusses the whole network i.e. ITV (Channel 3), its history, its structure, and current programming without constantly refering to the network as ITV1 (a brand name, with limited geographical scope). i.e. ITV should be used as the generic term for the whole network. Perhaps if necessary this page can then be broken down into sub-pages such as structure, history, programming, etc?
  • ITV plc should be used to discuss ITV plc as it more or less does now.
  • History of ITV should be used to talk about the network in general terms, so shouldnt really have a discussion about a takeover of ITV plc, as it doesnt really affect the network as such.
  • ITV channels perhaps better as "list of ITV channels"? Should also refer to channel 3 by a generic name rather than ITV1. Perhaps listing regions as well?
  • Does ITV2 rumour really deserve its own article? Would it not be better merged into ITV2
  • I'm not sure how encyclopedic ITV Network Continuity Announcers is? even if it is, how correct is the title? Do stv and UTV have there own contintuity? If they do, shouldnt it be "ITV1 Continuity Announcers", or given that it also dicusses other channels "ITV plc Continuity Announcers"?

So what do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree the Channel 3 article is in a bit of a mess - all it needs really is an explanation saying its a legal formality - it doesn't need to go into depth about the franchise holders as the ITV articles do that. History of ITV - that seems in an okay order at the moment but I agree, ITV plc has bugger all to do with the franchise holders in reality. Plus ITV plc is a fairly new company, so does it need to be mentioned in a article titled "History of ITV"? It should also be mentioned that the article is the history of the ITV Network, not ITV plc the company or any other ITV channels. Perhaps we should have an ITV Network article for the modern discussion of Channel 3 franchise holders only - nothing about ITV2, 3 etc - just pure franchsies and companies. The ITV article can generally go into most things.

It must also be included in the ITV1 article that it is not really a channel in itself, more of a generic name used by twelve franchise holders rather than their own names - it is a brand name. It never has been a "channel" and never will be. A clear difference needs to be made between ITV, ITV Plc and regional companies - I suggest never to use just "ITV" when referring to ITV plc as this may cause confusion. The ITV template (page footer) also seems to be getting "too big" and goes into depth about digital channels and web portals - perhaps there should be a Channel 3 infobox, then one for ITV plc, SMG plc, UTV plc and so on. Marbles333 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Forwarding this, should ITV1 get an ITV Franchisee infobox instead of a TV channel one - it's not a channel just a cover-up franchise name Marbles333 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely. I shall change the infobox now. --tgheretford (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, hold off changing it for a minute. The {{Infobox ITV franchisee}} needs a few changes (predominately the addition of a "changed names" field) before it could be used in the ITV1 article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be got around in this way, don't you think? Channel Television is more or less still with us, so I couldn't really include it in some points of the infobox. Marbles333 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
ITV Network Continuity Announcers sounds completely pointless. There is already a Continuity Announcer article which seems perfectly sufficient for this purpose. ITV2 rumour has been merged into ITV2 now, which has a history section to which I gave somewhat of an overhaul, recently. I think this is sufficient for the purpose of explaining pre 1990s ITV2 now. Fursday 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITV & Channel 3 (UK) Merger

As discussed above, I have proposed a merger of ITV and Channel 3 (UK). AFAICT they are basically the same thing and do actually cover the same content. After second thoughts, as mentioned by others, I think there is a place for a much reduced ITV1 article discussing that ITV1 is a brand-name but not the history of the network or programming, etc Pit-yacker 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about keep Channel 3 and just mention that it's a legal formality issued by Ofcom, franchise-based, every 10 years and it started in 1955. It still needs an expanation IMO . EDIT: Bad move merging the History of ITV article - not relavant anymore.Marbles333 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry not sure what you mean by merging History of ITV. I think that and ITV should stay as separate articles. The current history section in this article is very long and in that respect I think separate articles are justified. However, I think there is a bit of shifting around needed - for example the history section of this article should IMHO be a very breif summary of the longer article - AFAICT, at the moment, it more or less covers everything in the history article. Also the History article previously had issues such as future, which does not really fit in an article on history IMHO. Pit-yacker 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, all I asked was why there is information duplicated from the History article onto this one, such as pre 1993 franchise rounds? Marbles333 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The two should absolutely not be merged because they are about two separate entities. ITV is the company that *currently* holds the Channel 3 licence, but is not Channel 3. The articles should reflect this.--81.179.77.251 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong there. ITV does not own any franchises; it is a network of 15 regional channel 3 broadcasters, and is more commonly known as the ITV Network. ITV plc owns eleven of the 15 franchises on the ITV Network. Since the term ITV (not ITV plc) describes the channel 3 network, it is realistically the same thing; the name "ITV Network" existed before the name Channel 3 anyhow (Channel 3 is just the generic name used by Ofcom and has been used since 1993). However, I believe the channel 3 article should be scaled down, just explaining it is a legal formality, gifted broadcast space and how the franchises work, but information on the companies itself should remain on the ITV article. Marbles 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Immediately - Channel 3 (UK) is a poor article in many aspects, while everyone knows that very poor OfCom reference as ITV. Rgds, - Trident13 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Programmes Section

Any ideas how this might be tidied up? IMHO it could do with a rewrite. Perhaps looking at some of ITV's older and more notable programming? IMHO the likes of 2DTV arent programmes that we will look back at in 10 years time. Pit-yacker 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The history section

I see that a lot of changes have been made in the ITV article. One thing I don't like is that the history section is way too short. The history is currently summarized into six lines, while other less crucial information get more coverage.

If the article is supposed to give the reader an understanding of what ITV is and how it works, you must have a longer history section. The previous history section gave the reader a brief view on the history of ITV in 2-3 minutes. I would therefore think that the article would be better if the History section was restored as it was before December 17 (although one can shrink it slightly). Väsk 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT, the old history section had everything that was in the History of ITV article. I dont see how it would be easy to reduce the original significantly. Therefore, the alternative IMHO would be to merge History of ITV into ITV.
As the history section is quite detailled, I thought it was deserving of its own article. At that point rather than duplicate the same information in two articles (IMHO a very bad thing as it means that (a) with time the articles will almost certainly start to contradict each other and (b) the reader will need to read both to get the full picture as information is added to different articles by different authors) it is sensible to have a brief summary with a link to the history article to avoid the ITV article being too long making both easier to read. In that respect I see History of ITV as a "sub-article" of ITV to keep the article size under control.Pit-yacker 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITV Regional Companies Official Name changes

On 29 December 2006, the following ITV companies officially changed their names:

See http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk and search under "ITV" - URL linking is not supported. So that signalled the death knell for HTV then. Marbles 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that 29th Dec was only last Friday (and Companies House can be slow at these things), it will be interesting (and worth keeping an eye out) to see if the other ITV companies change. It also might be sensible to move articles to their new name and start articles as:
'''ITV <region name>''' (formerly known as '''<name>''').
Pit-yacker 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Digging a bit more there are a few more subtle changes:
  • Anglia Television changed its name to ITV Broadcasting Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Broadcasting Ltd changed its name to Anglia Television (Nature of business not stated).
  • Carlton Television changed its name to ITV Consumer Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Consumer Ltd changed its name to Carlton Television (Nature of business: Non-trading company)
Pit-yacker 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Change

AFAICT the column I changed was the name of the "Franchise Holder". Surely if the company that holds the franchise changes its name that name is the new name of the franchise holder? Whether this tallies with the name that Ofcom currently display on their website (perhaps better entitled "Official Franchise Name") is surely irrelevant? Pit-yacker 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a good idea because in addition, Scottish Television Ltd has now re-named as STV Central Ltd, and Grampian Television Ltd has re-named as STV North Ltd, so where does that show the true company that was licenced to broadcast that franchise? Plus at the time (1993), they (the companies as they were) were to companies who signed the contract, not its re-named title. For example who actually knows HTV Group Ltd as ITV Wales and West Ltd, and the franchise certainly isn't in the name of ITV Wales and West Ltd. Just a thought anyway. Marbles 19:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/t/v/Talk%7EITV_f83e.html"