Talk:Five (channel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject British TV channels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV channels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV channels, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Five or five?

Is it Five or five? Marnanel 18:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although their on-air and online branding is "five", their website's page is headed "about Five" so I conclude our usage is correct! -- Arwel 20:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Their website almost exclusively uses "five" now, I've updated the article to use the lowercase name. Tom- 14:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This question was responded to in the FAQ section on Five's website, here. In keeping with that answer, their website (and that of RTL Group) refer to both the channel and the broadcaster, in non-branded text, as "Five". The word "five" is used on their website where their branding style is applied (headlines, titles, etc), and every word (in similar headlines or titles) is exclusively lower case. RobWill80 03:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I might move the article to .five sometime this week if that's all right with you. This move will be as close as we can get until one of those lazy developers starts working on allowing initial small letters in the article namespace. Scott Gall 10:10, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I don't think .five is as good as Five (channel), as it's pretty well-known that wikipedia articles begin with a capitalised letter, and the initial full-stop is an addition to the name rather than a simple alteration to it. Let's leave it here, unless there is a consensus among more than a handful to move it to .five. (No vote re: moving the article). User:Pedant 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - RTL Group refer to the channel as "Five" through their official documents, "five" is used for branding. As far as I am aware, we should keep to the way that it is written officially, in this case, as "Five". Using ".five" would be a terrible idea, as it would go against Wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions, plus ".five" is never used by RTL and would be incomprehensible and incorrect to the casual reader. --tgheretford (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Words vs. Numerals

Do TV logos follow any set rules on whether to use a word or a numeral for a number?? Channel 4's logo is the numeral; this logo is the word. 66.32.255.51 02:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, it's entirely up to each channel's marketers and management to determine what the logo is. Five's old logo was a numeral 5 within a circle, now it's the word. Things change. -- Arwel 02:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What year did the logo change from a numeral to a word?? 66.32.255.51 02:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 2002. See The TV Room. -- Arwel 02:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] An unusual word

The word five in this case, according to this article, is an unusual word in that it is never capitalized even when it begins a sentence. Are words like this common?? 66.32.249.42 02:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On this article's title

I have just moved the article back to "Five (TV)" from "Five (TV network)" where someone (apparently US resident) moved it over the Christmas break, because a) it's not a network -- it's a single station with national coverage, and b) there are a hell of a lot of broken double redirects from this article's previous incarnations as "Channel Five", "Channel 5", etc. -- Arwel 19:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Wars

The section on Robot Wars is extremely long for such a minor issue - any one upset if I chop it down, or does it have relavance that I'm missing? Tompagenet 09:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added it as it was one of five's more recent ventures, and it did cause a lot of upset amongst both roboteers and fans, mainly because some of them still can't get five. I've cut out the bit about broadcast dates, that seemed to be going around in circles. Robert Mc Cann

[edit] History

I've checked the history of several number articles from 3 to 13 and found out that the 5 (number) article's history originally appeared to be about this television network. Is this a habit many Wikipedians had back in late 2002?? (namely, to copy-paste one article title into another rather than moving it.) Georgia guy 01:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that was at least one, maybe two, complete rewrites of the wiki software ago. I can't remember how easy it was to actually move articles in those days. Anyway, we still hadn't settled on all the standard ways of doing things back then, when there were still quite a few fewer than 200,000 articles on en: ! -- Arwel 02:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to us. I have shifted the revisions in question from the history of 5 (number) to the revision history of this article. - Mark 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title description

Above, it said:

This article's title is incorrect; the correct title is five, rather than the five (TV) that it originally said. Can anyone explain the reason in detail?? Georgia guy 23:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "(TV)" is just a disambiguation from other usages of the word "Five". The reason the title is incorrect is because the MediaWiki software forces the use of a capital letter to start the title, i.e. "Five", when the actual name of the channel is "five". -- Arwel 00:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, as indicated above in this talk page under the heading "An unusual word", this is a question I asked a while ago (prior to January 1, 2005, which is when I first logged on) that this can be categorized as. How come no one has answered this yet?? Georgia guy 00:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just any word; it's a proper noun that isn't capitalized. To answer your question, the people who created the channel aren't capitalizing it because they don't feel like it, and I'm sure there are other channels that do that. Mike H 11:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New question

What will happen if you write {{title|five}} at the top of this article?? Georgia guy 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 5 still right??

Their website says "Channel 5" is still their corporate name although no longer their on-air brand. Any comments on editing this article?? Georgia guy 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added legal name to company section. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1999-2000 logo

Image:Channel5 Logo.jpg was definitely used from 1999 to 2000. The (5) logo did indeed last until 2002, but that incarnation of it (with the white background and the (5) at a slight angle) only lasted a year.

Technically the image is unneeded, as I created Image:Channel 5.png to show the 1997-2002 logo (based on [1]). But if it stays, then it should be changed to the correct date range of 1999 to 2000. Billy H 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Then, is there a separate logo for 2000-2002?? If so, why not upload it?? Georgia guy 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There were two (one used from 2000-2002, the other in 2002 only). The trouble is it's hard to find good quality images of TV logos - the current 99-00 one was nabbed off a TV ident site, which is what most people do, but I've never been comfortable with the idea. The images are often too small, and can be quite blurry. It's things like [2] I look for, which personally I think is better than what's currently at Channel5 Logo.jpg. Billy H 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

According to TV-Ark the logo was from 2000 - 2003 when five changed its onscreen name and logo to the current name and logo

TV Ark also says the Channel 4 [4] logo was introduced in 1998, and UK Gold 2 started in 2000. All incorrect. Billy H 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five gifted space

Didn't five actually get guarantied half a MUX at market rates by the government as opposed to gifted it (which is what I am lead to believe)? 88.106.236.242 15:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe they were gifted it, but I actually don't know for sure. They are guaranteed it due to their status as a national analogue terrestrial licencee, though - payment or no payment, whatever it may be. --Kiand 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five US

Anyone know what Five US means?? Does US stand for United States?? Georgia guy 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it will showcase the broadcaster's American imports, such as the three CSI series'. There have been rumours that the channel will be called U5A. Marks87 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: interestingly, the new digital terrestrial channels are making the same mistake as the original 5 launch - namely that they are much harder to tune to than ANY other channels on Freeview. Not sure of the technical reason for this on digital versus on analogue, but it hardly puts them in a good light after they already did this to people first time round. Anyone have any reasons?

[edit] The small "f"

Five has now capitalised the "F" on both satellite and DTT channel labels. Think its time to stop using it throughout the article? Clearly they now don't. --Kiand 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd officially refer to the channel as Five [3] My personal view is that as this article (and use of the Five name in subsequent articles) is not being used for the promotion of the channel (which would use "five"), the name should stay as the official stance of Five. --tgheretford (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article keeps getting reverted to 'five' so I've added an "invisible" warning to editors ("The correct title for this channel is 'Five'. Do not change 'five' to lowercase.")-- Edits AntzUK Talk 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change??

Until recently, the article began with an infobox about Five, saying that its current name is Five and that its former name was "Channel 5" from 1997-2002". However, recently, someone wrote that the station was "five" from 2002-2006. Is this correct?? Georgia guy 00:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the channel's FAQ, it's called "Five" but is written as "five" when the HelveticaNeueLT font is used. So I agree that listing "five" under "formerly called" is misleading since it's still used; I'll remove it. --Nick R^Talk 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Live on Five

Anyone think it'd be important to mention something about channel five broadcasting live NFL on TV? I know it can be seen on Sky but this is I think the first time it's been live on Terrestrial TV. Anyone know anything about the deal between five and ESPN for this too happen either? Dangerhertz 01:18, 11 september 2006 (UTC)

I've no comment on whether the coverage is worthy of inclusion; it's not the first time NFL has been on UK terrestrial television, as Channel 4 showed some games (usually play-offs) live for much of the 1990s. Eludium-q36 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Channel 4 did show NFL live from the late 1980's [4] --tgheretford (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No sister channels

"multi-channel strategy" section is now out of date. it says "At present Five has no sister channels" which will be incorrect as soon as fivelife and fiveUS get launched. needs re-writing? 88.105.200.206 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) blue_blade

Untrue as Five US and Five Life are not sister channels, sister channels are the same but with variacations such as BBC Two and BBC TwoW. -- London UK | talk 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited Article?

Now Channel 5 have launched Five Life and Five US, should the five (TV) article become solely devoted to the television channel "five", and a new article be produced for Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited? It seems a bit strange that Five, Five US and Five Life don't have a common "provider" article between them all, for example BBC One has the BBC article; BBC One is a channel and the BBC is the broadcaster and company behind it. I understand the same could be argued for Channel 4, and that such information could just be placed in the five (TV) article, but really there is a company behind all three with a different name. I suppose you could include information about formation, ownership, premisis etc, but no worries if it sounds stupid; I'd just like to learn about the company aswell! Marbles333 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking this too, I think it would really clean up the article. --Dee4leeds 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've added a 'disputed neutrality' box to the article because it seems to have become infested with quite a lot of POV (and semi-literate) 'talking up' of the channel which I assume has been added by a Five employee, e.g. 'Five has also fronted itself at providing the best in drama'. (Incidentally, depending on the meaning of the novel phrasal verb 'to front oneself at', such a claim would appear preposterous to anyone who has watched this sub-tabloid turd of a channel.) I can't be bothered to trawl the article and remove all this stuff right now, but perhaps someone else can. Ben Finn 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've edited this page a bit. I started it as I was involved in one of the re-tuning bids for the channel, so I know a bit about it. Is the POV any better now? Briantist 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've made it clear that the channel was licenced by the ITC, which was not clear. Five is supposed to be a 'public service broadcasting channel' :-0 Briantist 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV as it seems OK now. Please restore it is there is anything not neutral now. Briantist 12:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem, this is on WP:CLEAN still, should I or someone remove it?Thinboy00 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schedule

Although it isn't illegal (to my knowledge) to publish schedules from Five, it goes against WP:NOT#DIR - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and WP:NOR. Schedules are also subject to regular changes. I would suggest we delete the schedule and leave it to TV Guides to cover Five's schedule. --tgheretford (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. It's a shame because someone obviously went to a lot of effort, and it looked good. Unfortunately, it is against WP:NOT. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Films, Fucking and Football"

I removed the following unsourced material:

"channel was known in the press for the three F's quote from Dawn Airey: "Films, Fucking and Football" [5].^[^{not in citation given]} The"

if a source can be found, by all means add it back. User:Pedant 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

eg: Daily Record (30/03/07) [6], Guardian blog (30/03/07) [7] Mail on Sunday (08/09/06) [8] BBC (13/10/06) [9] Jheald 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five to broadcast The Nine

There's some mention at The Nine (TV series) of 5 broadcasting the cancelled TV show, The Nine, I think this is notable if true. User:Pedant 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The 'cleanup' tag has been added again... nice if there was a post to say what's up! BRIANTIST (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Faith

Although I love the Adam Faith rumour- namely that his last words were "God, Channel 5 really is shit, isn't it? What a complete waste of space", unless someone can find either verification that he said it or at least verification that shows it to be a widely held rumour, can people stop adding it to the article?--Victim Of Fate 19:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a reference to that quote in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,954581,00.html. The only problem is that people don't provide references when they make additions to Wikipedia. The Adam Faith article says that it is a urban myth, but I can't see that anywhere in the Guardian article. --tgheretford (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... in that case, it might actually be worth adding to the article, as long as it's made clear that it has been reported, rather than that it is a matter of fact.--Victim Of Fate 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Launch night

I've removed the POV text from the "Launch" section of the article, which contained text such as "This was followed by the rather unmemorable first episode of the now defunct daily soap opera Family Affairs". I've replaced it with a list of the first few programmes, but by all means feel free to replace this if it is deemed not necessary.

HillValleyTelegraph 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some poorly formatted POV continues to be added. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited it to 24hr time formatted properly. 24hr time doesn't have a :, . or any other punctuation between the hour and minute. I have to say, I prefer it as 12hr am/pm, but someone edited it away from that earlier. mattbuck 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the 24 hour format, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Time formatting suggests that times do have a colon in between the hour and minute. --tgheretford (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] America's Finest/Drama at 10

I don't think either of these programming blocks are currently referred to on-air. Drama at 10 used to be, but since then House and Grey's Anatomy have both moved. In addition, the brand "America's Finest" is not currently associated with CSI on Five. I've reverted these changes, but correct me if I'm wrong.--Victim Of Fate 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toonami Children's Block

With regards the "Five has purchased a Toonami_(UK) branded block from Turner to start later in the year." Is there any actual concrete evidence for this? Is not the url given url=http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/dtt/813.htm just the licence Toonami have to broadcast on Top Up TV (as Channel 5 own the space as it was gifted to them)? ashfish 13:02, 11 May 2007

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Five Logo 1999-2000.jpg

Image:Five Logo 1999-2000.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fivenewslogo.jpg

Image:Fivenewslogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Merge: five's image to this article

I am proposing merging the text from the five's image to this article, along with references being added to the text. The article size of this article does not warrant anything specifically about the channel being given its own article in my opinion, so I am suggesting a merge of the text under a title of Five promotion and branding. --tgheretford (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Support. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I have a large amount to add to the page, I think it should remain rather than be merged.

Edito*Magica again, lets just decide later after more informaion has been incorperated. If it seems too short, then i think we should erge, however if it seems there's a large amount of information; i believe a new page is relevant. Thanks, reply if you wish. Edito*Magica 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Due the large and growing length of the five's image page, I believe it should not be merged. For the time being I will remove the tags that the page has been hit with, however if you have any other issues reguarding the page, feel free to comment on my talk page, I shall get back to you. Thanks. Edito*Magica 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrites of this article

The article is detailed, perhaps too detailed, but often reads like a publicity handout and may well be more expansive than articles for the other terrestial channels. Something to sort out another day. The endless use of five as a noun has been removed, with synonyms substituted, and "aired" largely removed. Some variation of style has also been introduced. Philip Cross 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Shandon!--86.29.248.124 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Channel5 Logo.jpg

Image:Channel5 Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Standard logo rationale added. Jheald (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage

Is there any statistics on how much of the UK population has five now? I couldn't see it in the article, although I could be blind. At my house we could get Channel 5, right up until the day it launched. We had the previews on the station's frequency but then as soon as it launched we lost all signal and have never been able to get a watchable signal since. --Beeurd (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)