Talk:Southern Cross Ten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Southern Cross Ten is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Can anyone confirm the bit about STV8? I suspect the ownership bit is incorrect. matturn 13:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope. It's all true. STV-8 Mildura was once part of the Eight and Ten Network/Eight Network that utimately became Southern Cross Ten. It was sold to ENT, and joined BTV-6 and GMV-6 as part of VIC TV. BigDan 12:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Me dissenting again... is the WA story true? There was some similar but incorrect stuff in the Imparja entry recently. matturn 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] News
Why do we in Victoria have to put up with Sydneycentric news on weekends and public holidays? You have lost me.
- Due to AFL Broadcast Timing, there is no local bulletin ready (The Half Time Bulletin in Melbourne is produced too late for SC 10 to Air in the proper time) at time of broadcast, thus they take the Sydney-Centric one. - Boochan 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Griffith
Regarding the lack of Southern Cross Ten in Griffith, it has nothing to do with Southern Cross Ten. It has everything to do with the federal Government's ACMA. If ACMA issued another commercial TV licence for the Griffith/MIA area, it would almost certainly result in a full-time Ten service becoming available there. Lobby Canberra, not Southern Cross Broadcasting. matturn 12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually this is inncorrect because the Griffith council requested that the Wagga broadcasting licence be extended, and they were advised that this was a viable option, however SCT declined due to it not being perceived as financially viable. Mrguru1211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrguru1211 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
Over the last 24 hours or so all the non-network related history has been split off into stations' relevant articles - this makes it a bit easier to follow the history of the actual network itself.
I've also made a few changes to the Availability section - just altering the wording of the first paragraph to make it a little clearer and moving the second over to an unordered list (it's more appropriate and it reads slightly better).
What I plan to do now is try and expand the history section again and find some references for it. timgraham 10:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good work TimG! the article looks good :). I have removed BCV, as this station call-sign does no longer exist; upon aggregation BCV became GLV. The history section however, needs to be greatly expanded, as at current the article is only 10kb long. Stickeylabel 10:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The history section contains all the detail I could find at the time, I'll keep digging later..BCV is actually still in use as well (a search at [1] lists 24 instances). timgraham 10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your right about BCV :P [2]. I have therefore moved GLV (TV station) to GLV/BCV, where an article about both of the similar stations can be discussed. Stickeylabel 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The history section contains all the detail I could find at the time, I'll keep digging later..BCV is actually still in use as well (a search at [1] lists 24 instances). timgraham 10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
