Talk:Television
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-former.png Former featured article candidate | This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status. |
| Contents |
Misc Comments
Re: "On average, Americans watch four hours of television per day." I find that hard to believe...could anyone please verify? anon 03:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It should be cited, but I don't know if it's that hard to believe. Some demographics watch a whole lot of TV: retirees, stay-at-home parents, children, college students. Rhobite 03:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Re. middle eastern Television. Isn't Al-Jazeera in Arabic? The current text makes it appear as though Al-Jazeera is broadcast in English. To the best of my knowledge, they were planning on an English language channel aimed at a North American audience but currently the only English language content they have is on their website. RJ
Re. television stations and networks. Much of what's listed on the Stations page are production companies and syndicators. A network (US) is an entity that provides programs to individual television stations, which, in the US, are only licensed to broadcast in their specific locales. Each network can a specific number--used to be 8--of "O & O's", stations it owns and operates, usually in the big markets.
Satellite and cable have created changes. Broadcast stations in an area can sign up to be carried on cable, but content providers like the Learning Channel can too. They aren't licensed to run broadcast equipment like a station and they don't provide content to licensed broadcasters either. AMT
That's interesting info. Why not add it to the main page?
This is a page that's well overdue for a major shake up. We probably need a new topic: Television programmes a-z. We probably need a Television personalities topic as well. And a Television programme categories topic for e.g. TV cookery, TV gardening etc. sjc
I think you're correct on all points. KQ
I'd like to see some date on the historical TV show. e.g. 1967-1971 etc.
Wallace and Grommit are essentially television. They had their big break in TV. Until the film, they were quite content with a quiet life in the UK appearing on Bank Holidays. They will always be a staple of wet Bank Holiday Mondays in my mind. Of course, Hollywood may go to their heads... sjc
Article says:
- Color television became available in 1953, backed by the CBS network. The government approved the color broadcast system proposed by CBS, but when RCA came up with a system that did not require changes to the old black and white TV sets, CBS dropped their own proposal and used the new one.
Those two sentences are US-centric, to a greater or lesser degree. Was the CBS network the first in the world, or just the U.S.? Also, I presume by the RCA system you mean NTSC? -- SJK
someone could try looking on this page. Sorry I don't have time right now. [1] (http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/) --rmhermen
Is it realistic to list every TV station/network here?
In the U.S., these are called networks, not stations.
I was under the impression that a television network was something more than a station (singular), that with syndication, different states and so on...?
- My understanding is that some stations in a the networks are Owned and Operated stations, others are independent, but still part of the overall network. Calicocat 15:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stations are members of networks or are independent in the U.S.A.
I don't know how to create disambiguation pages, or I'd do it myself (is there some special magic, or is it just a question of changing the page around?), but perhaps we need "TV" to separate between "television" and "transvestite"??? -Bth
Is there a standard for whether to disambiguate TV program/series names by adding "(television)", "(TV series)", "(TV program)", or whatever, that I've overlooked? -- John Owens 13:07 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think regularity has been enforced, but personally I suspect "(television)" is the way to go. --Brion
Why does the top of the article say that the first electronic television programming was in Los Angeles in 1931 while the section of TV sets says the first was Germany in 1935. Rmhermen 18:14, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
In the early days, there was a competition between the Baird and Marconi systems in the UK. Needs adding. I might later. Andy G 16:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The list of European networks is totally inadequate. Who on earth thinks that there's one country? Even Iceland has two.--JBellis 16:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
licence fee
The United Kingdom chose a different route, imposing a television licence fee (effectively a tax) to fund the BBC (emphasis added)
As I understand it, it is a fee, not a tax: it's paid only by the people who directly benefit (as opposed to, say, the government funding public education with my money).
However, I'm in the US, and things don't work like that here at all, so I don't know -- and I'm not really willing to learn. --Charles A. L. 16:44, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC) You are right it was POV --BozMo 21:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)
Germany, also, charges for radios and televisions and just began charging for "internet capable" PCs, not merely "internet connected."[2] (http://rense.com/general58/tax.htm) Kwantus 19:24, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
This misleadingly implies that the UK is unusual in having a licence system. All (or virtually all) countries in Europe have similar systems. See [3] (http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/service_public.html) for comparisons of systems. As a matter of interest, Iceland is the most expensive and Romania the cheapest. Also TV licensing in the UK grew out out of radio licensing in the as, I'd expect it did elsewhere. Many countres still have separate radio licenses. Singapore has licences for TVs and for radios in vehicles. --JBellis 15:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
aspect ratio
"A common compromise is to shoot or create material at an aspect ratio of 14:9, and to lose some image at each side for 4:3 presentation, and some image at top and bottom for 16:9 presentation."
I believe this is wrong, at least as far as Britain is concerned. Here programmes are shot in 16:9 for digital and displayed at 14:9 in analogue, losing a bit of the picture at the sides and having narrow black bands at the top and bottom. I have seen no evidence of programmes being made in 14:9 and losing detail from the top and bottom for 16:9 transmission. Lee M 03:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Is there something like a 16:10 ratio, maybe by TV set manufacturers (I think remembering something like that), although I wouldn't know what good for. But maybe that'd just be some of this 14:9 stuff. --Newbie (CH) 17:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BBC
BBC: "state broadcaster"? I'm not sure the BBC is a "state broadcaster" in the same that broadcasters elsewhere are. True, it's content is more extensively controlled by the establishment than commercial channels in the UK (see BBC's Royal Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/)), but this doesn't mean it broadcasts on behalf of the government. According to the BBC article, "is a national publicly-funded broadcaster." Whoever wrote this, please consider revising it. And yes, we Brits are very sensitive about our Beeb! pomegranate 23:34, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking the BBC IS a "State broadcasting system" because it and it alone was converted from an exclusive commercial monopoly licensed by the government to a Crown chartered broadcasting corporation. The fees paid by viewers (used to include listeners) and they are not voluntary like the PBS/NPR system in the USA.
- If you don't pay your "fee" you can go to gaol/jail! This is not a true "fee" but a tax that must be paid if you own a television set and it does not matter whether you hate the BBC and only watch Sky TV, because if you have a TV set the government will send out its detection police to force you to pay up or else!
- Myth surrounds the BBC because it is supported by brainwashing that it is the best system in the world: I for one say that it is the worst system in the world. Before anyone attacks me I was born in Britain, went to school in Britain, suffered with the BBC in Britain and at the half-way point in my life I packed up and moved to the USA! Yes, I have friends in Britain, yes I keep in contact and yes I am and have been very involved in both journalism and broadcasting with regards to Britain and the subject of free speech.
- I wrote all of that as a disclaimer so that I don't have to write it in the future when someone decides that I don't understand and appreciate the value of the BBC. That is subjective nonsense. As far as objective entries are concerned, the BBC needs to be separated into the catagory of state broadcasting.
- By the way, the commercial stations in Britain are not set up in the way that the US commercial stations are licensed and the restrictions are much tighter, hence the UK has always been plagued with pirate unlicensed radio from both offshore and on land. MPLX/MH 00:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No numerical prefix
It has been rumored by a few Wikipedians that this word is in either of these categories:
- Combines a Greek numerical prefix with a Latin suffix
- Combines a Latin numerical prefix with a Greek suffix
It is neither. It has no numerical prefix. Where did they get the idea that it is one of these 2 types of words?? 66.245.72.116 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Where did you hear this rumour?? I have heard (not on wikipedia) that the word combines a Green prefix and Latin suffix, or vice versa, but it obviously doesn't have a numerical suffix! [edit: or numerical prefix -- 23:22, 17 Sep 2004 ] -- Chuq 02:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- There are no restrictions for the suffix; the prefix has to be numerical. 66.245.16.193 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To make sure you know this, I heard this when someone created a Wikipedia article called Sexagon as another name for hexagon. 66.245.127.112 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Queens Coronation
Removed from main page: (wasn't the Queen's coronation broadcast in colour in the 50's?) No it was filmed in colour and broadcaast in B&W, hence if the reshoew the film it will appear as colour Dainamo 10:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's perhaps the ugliest television set I've seen
Don't you have a better picture? - Jerryseinfeld 01:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Aaargh - a better picture is urgent! Intrigue 22:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Glad to see that awful graphic is gone... -- Scott Burley 18:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Any chance of a picture of a modern TV? Someone's got to have one! Intrigue 20:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Section organization
I reordered sections to introduce some sanity (bring related things together, mainly) and open up some obvious areas of future expansion. There are still mucho problems, though, especially a lot of interplay between History and Technology that could use some sorting. Looks like 'TV set' is probably the original article, and the other stuff has grown up around it? Anyway, is History really the way to start this out? We probably need a good, terse Overview section at the top (after the lead). I still think this is far from Featured Article status. It's more in need of sitting on the Expansion pile or maybe eventually Peer Review. --Dhartung | Talk 11:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dangers
I guess this article does need a "dangers" section, but it doesn't need to be the lead section. The current version is a start but it's very POV. Rhobite 04:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Relative importance of sections
Hello,
I am glad that at least *something* is left of my efforts! But seriously, the headers need to stay, this is obviously embryonic but it is a framework for others to build upon. The issues are all too real. My first reaction in reading the article on tv was "You've got to be kidding!" Here is the most important social factor to have arisen in the last half-century, and there is *no* discussion of social and psychological issues, and what space there is for that is tacked on as an after thought?!
The article reads like a piece written by a machine-head for a machine-head, ok in a tech encyclopedia, but here?!
Suggestion: let's break out the tech talk and tech history and tech geographical usage into a separate article, leaving the main article with *legible* abstracts of all three and with an emphasis on the social aspects of the thing. We are not talking about oscilloscopes here. The real story of televison is the effect is has, good and bad, on modern society. The rest is apocrypha. Haiduc 11:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do you really think it ought to be the first thing in the article? You seem to be against television in general. I agree that the social consequences of television, both positive and negative, need to be explored in the article. But certainly not before the history of the invention. Rhobite 20:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- It should probably be organized as follows:
Overview of Television Technology of Television History of Television Social implications Misc
--Improv 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Here I am "agin' it" because the piece is hopelessly skewed. The problem here is that the history and technology are so extensive that they drown out the rest of the material. The subject is vast, so that the most sensible way is for the main page to act as a hub with short abstracts leading to the various individual entries -
- History of Television
- Social Implications of Television [pro and con]
- Technology of Television
- Television Broadcast Networks, [etc, etc.]
Improv's suggestion of "Overview of Television" would be subsumed in the hub page itself. Do we implement? Haiduc 23:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The technical information and details of the invention should be in this article, including the paragraphs about the social impact of television. If someone want to write more than a couple paragraphs, the social topics should be branched out to their own article. History and technology should stay in the main article. Geographical-specific information, which is probably half of the current article, also be branched to its own article. Rhobite 23:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Separate article for TV sets.
IMO this artcile should be about the medium, culture, and so on. A separate arctle should be made specifically to talk about the device: television set. --Berkut 07:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
More about television studies?
There's a social aspects-chapter, but it stays mainly at recent comments. Seeing how entire studies are dealing with the subject, shouldn't there at least be a part about Williams, Fiske & Hartley or Hall's ideas about television? Some of their pages briefly touch the subject, but I feel that the total coverage is way too low. Does somebody has the time for this?