Talk:ITV
|
|
| Contents |
Proposal to rename
I propose we rename this article History of ITV - that is essentially what it deals with, with ITV plc and ITV1 containing mainly current information. --Rdd 13:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Reorganising
IMHO, this article needs reorganising - no clearly defined sections etc. I'll have an attempt when I have some more time, but if anyone wants to have a go themselves... Marknew 18:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have produced the beginnings of a possible replacement article for ITV that will hopefully have a better structure - please look at it, criticise it and modify it!- Marknew 16:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Future franchise auctions
Something I was left wondering which might be worth mentioning: will there still be franchise auctions despite the current hegemony? (I'm assuming there will, but reading this you might get the idea that the current state of affairs is permanent.) Marnanel 14:22, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Really late reply here... I don't believe that there will be any future franchise auctions; the Act introduced in the early 1990s allows existing franchise holders to apply to renew their contracts (I think). -- Marknew 20:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Newbie/possible idiot alert
That'd be me.
I've spent the last week observing how the Wikipedia works - it looks like it works great, a real collective operation and one I want to add my limited knowledge to where possible.
But despite that week trying to learn, I'm obviously still a complete newbie and will have made hundreds of stupid errors - that's what newbies do, of course!
So can I ask a favour of Wikipeople with more experience and knowledge than me? Please can you look at my contributions so far (I've acknowledged stupid things I've done that I've noticed) and let me know - in calm, patient words of one syllable or less - what I need to learn from?
BTW, the two new articles I've added are edited versions of articles from http://www.transdiffusion.org/ and are definitely used with permission - they're Open Content via CreativeCommons, plus one was written by me and one was written by my boyfriend!!
User:Redvers ... and there's a way of inserting the date and time here. Oh, learning curves, what fun.
- You're not an idiot, and thanks for asking for advice. I've put a reply on your talk page. -- Arwel 22:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ABC Weekend TV
I'd like to canvas opinion for a change of name to the article currently called Associated British Corporation.
This title is not incorrect; however, it's not correct, either!
ABC's company name was "Associated British Cinemas (Television) Limited". On air they used both "ABC Television" and "ABC Weekend TV" (the latter spoken and used in press adverts, the former used on idents and on letterhead).
The name "Associated British Corporation" was a name to fit an acronym - there was never a company of that name; that name appeared on export copies of "The Avengers" and on the parts of the company that didn't go towards making up Thames Television.
Therefore the article as it stands is calling the company by a name that most, if not all, viewers and executives didn't. By extension, this isn't making life easy for ABC-searchers.
I'd vote for using "ABC Television" as the name, unless ABC-US has already grabbed this. If so, "ABC Weekend" or "ABC Weekend TV" would make more sense historically and factually.
BTW, calling the article "Associated British Cinemas (Television) Limited" wouldn't work, either: that was the company's name but no-one knew it by that name outside of the Company Secretary!
Opinions?