Talk:ITV (TV network)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject British TV/Channels (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British TV/Channels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British TV channels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


How is it possible to be "public service" and commercial? I've always thought those to be mutually exclusive, as a commercial station or network serves its advertisers. Public service broadcasters are funded by licence fees! -- (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

'Public service' refers to the nature of the service, not how it is funded. To put it simplistically, a purely commercial broadcaster exists to maximise revenue for its owners/shareholders, a public service broadcaster exists provide programming for the benefit of society, and if it sells advertising, this is just a means to generate revenue in order to achieve this. Having a commercial agenda is not the same as being commercially funded - Channel 4 is an entirely public service broadcaster funded through advertising and S4C part funded through advertising. When ITV began, it operated on both models, with regional contractors taking franchises in order to make money for their shareholders and the Independent Television Authority and later the Independent Broadcasting Authority existing to strongly regulate the network by requiring the contractors also produced content of a public service nature, meaning the ITV network existed as an unusual hybrid. These requirements have been enormously relaxed since the 1990s. -- Fursday 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Head of ITV[edit]

In the article on BBC, there is a box stating that Mark Thompson is currently Head of BBC. Perhaps this article would be improved if the name of the head of ITV went in the box. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This website, the website of the Daily Mail: [1] says that the head of ITV was Stuart Prebble, but says that he has just resigned. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split between present-day ITV2 and rumoured pre-1982 channel[edit]


I'd like to draw your attention to my proposal for splitting the above article. If you're interested, please read (and reply) at the ITV2 talk page:-

Talk:ITV2 proposed split

Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change[edit]

Just so that this can be decided ahead of any changes, it would appear the soon ITV1 is to be rebranded back to ITV, according to this article from Broadcast Now. If this comes to nothing, then the current arrangement will remain, but if this does occur, will the articles be merged or one renamed e.g. ITV (channel) / ITV (network). Any ideas on how to deal with this? Rafmarham (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question. If the articles are correctly named at present, a name change shouldn't effect anything though there would be the question of which article retains the "ITV" name - probably this article, with the other being labelled "ITV (brand)"
Of course, some editors will variously argue that the status quo isn't ideal; in the past it has been argued that the articles be merged anyway whilst others have been in favour of the separation but preferred another title such as "Independent Television" or "Channel 3" - the legal term for the ITV Network.
Perhaps we should cement the present consensus first, and then use that to tackle any naming conventions post-rebrand? -- Fursday 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I do support a move/simplification to avoid complication. I personally think ITV Network would probably cause the least confusion. Mark999 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Actually ITV (TV Network) like STV (TV Network). Mark999 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure on Channel 3 and Independent Television because it breaks WP:COMMONNAME, nobody refers to them like that and it is just a legal name. I belieed the current consensus was that ITV represented the entire network, including ITV plc's ITV1 service as well as UTV and STV. ITV1 represented ITV plc's service as some aspects are different elsewhere in the country. I don't believe merging the two would work for the reasons stated above, ITV plc's service does not represent the entire country. Rafmarham (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I would be inclined to state on ITV 1 that it is a former brand-name for the ITV franchisees owned by ITV plc. ITV plc should stay as it is. This article should be the article that represents the association and Channel 3 network as it does at present.
I'm not sure where ITV plc's use of the name fits in with all this. All the other names thus far suggested have problems, technically ITV1 is a network rather than a channel (BBC 1 is a network as well) so the distinction between channel and network isn't really correct. ITV (brand) is confusing as it isn't clear what it refers to. That is the brand and the network are synonymous. It just so happens that ITV plc have adopted that brand. so does the ITV brand apply to the whole network (I would argue this), the name used by some franchisees, ITV plc, or something else. Channel 3 and Independent Television are ok as redirects. However, they shouldn't be the primary article location, as no one in the real world uses these terms - especially the latter which is a little archaic.
I guess the part of the solution might be answered by answering the question "Just how much is there to say about ITV plcs use of ITV for their bits of the network? Pit-yacker (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The point about Common Name is reasonable actually. However there is a broader issue which in my opinion has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory way - that is the naming of the ITV plc franchise articles. There has been a move (albeit slightly inconsistent) to rename these articles into an "ITV" branded form - c.f. ITV Wales & West. The issue I have with this is that most of the material in these articles concerns the (long) period in which most of them were independent companies, and that they are presently no longer individual operations. One option might be that these articles should be formed in the past tense with the modern day regional aspects of ITV Plc as subsections of what is currently ITV1. I think it's worth tackling this issue at the same time as thinking about naming here. -- Fursday 22:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but those companies do technically still run the license, it;s just they've been amalgamated and I don't see any reason to split it off. Plus it provides a nice contrast between the ITV of pre mergers and the ITV of today. How about ITV (service) as a new name for ITV1, maybe with the addition to ITV (ITV plc service). That was it adheres to common name (ITV) while being specific from the whole network. I think that ITV should if possible remain as representing the whole network. Rafmarham (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion ITV1 becomes ITV (TV channel), ITV become ITV Network. I think we still need the ITV plc article. Mark999 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
So the consensus seems to be that if ITV1 becomes ITV then the ITV1 article will be renamed ITV (TV channel) (I know about it not being a channel technically but a network but in the minds of the common population ITV1 is a single channel), ITV plc will retain it's name, ITV will become ITV (TV network) while the page ITV becomes a disambiguation page. Rafmarham (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree this should happen, when the rebrand happens unless another idea of how the articles can be rearranged and/or renamed happens in time for the rebrand. Mark999 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It has been confirmed that ITV1 will be renamed as ITV shortly. Rafmarham (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 Edits[edit]

As per some requests on the to-do list, I have copy edited the page to tidy it up, added a significant history section, differentiated between ITV plc and ITV throughout and brought up to date where I could. I removed the 1998 ITV logo as it was serving no constructive purpose and had no link to the article. Rafmarham (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename update[edit]

I have renamed the article now in order to give time for all links to be fixed ready for the rebrand which will happen in January. Mark999 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If after this ITV1 gets moved to ITV (TV Channel) then once all the links are sorted any arguments over the name/articles content can then be sorted. Mark999 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm impressed. A plan worked out before hand and all niggles removed. Editor collaboration at it's best! Rafmarham (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Changes executed perfectly. Well done all! Rafmarham (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a primary topic?[edit]

After the move to ITV (TV network) last week, ITV presently redirects here. Is the primary topic the network or the channel? Or otherwise just make the disambiguation page ITV and drop the brackets from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreal7 (talkcontribs)

The ITV that is the subject of the ITV (TV channel) page is a branded service that forms part of this network. I thinks its right that this is the landing page. Besides, it does clearly state in the opening paragraph that it shouldnt be confused with ITV in England and Wales and ITV plc. Rafmarham (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the majority of links might come from television programme articles, and some users will have the tendency to just type in [[ITV]], which would redirect here and would be the correct article to link to, although not every link will be correct. So I'm fine with it currently redirecting here. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 Edits[edit]

I have just been through and added a large number of new references from news sources to the history and operations sections. We have now reached the point where it is difficult to give references to the other sections. As a result, I've removed the refimprove tag and the to-do box at the top of this page. I also removed the information on the 2013 rebranding, it only applied to the ITV plc service and was fairly minor, and the old ITV logo as it served no purpose. Both of these were already in the History of ITV article. Rafmarham (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Following these launches, the ITA awarded more franchises until the whole country was covered by a regional station, totaling fourteen"[edit]

Surely this should be eighteen?

In addition to the fifteen nominally in existance today, there was also North West Wales and the weekend franchises for the Midlands and the North. -- Fursday 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This does seem unclear. If you look at the table towards the top of the History of ITV article, there's 17 initial franchises listed. If you count the companies making up those franchises there's 15, if you count just the regions there's 14. I think this sentence needs rewriting slightly as to me it sounds like it's saying there was fourteen franchises not regions. The table doesn't list North West Wales as a separate region at that stage in ITV's history however. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well which figure is the most useful in the context of the article? Probably the number of regions, I'd have thought.
I was confused about the 18, as of course this pre-dates the separate Yorkshire region so 17 is indeed quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fursday (talkcontribs) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Logos Prior to 1989[edit]

We also need the ITV logos that were used before 1989. -- (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


The Logos section is missing the ITV logos prior to 1989. Can anyone upload those logos? -- (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, keep your hair on, I've managed to put the name back in the lead. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not just say what ITV STANDS FOR !!!???[edit]

One could guess that since ITA means INDEPENDANT TELEVISION AUTHORITY (IIRC) then ITV means Independent TV, but why not just say so if this is what it means?BrianAlex (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move, and move ITV (disambiguation) to ITV. -- tariqabjotu 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.