Talk:ITV (TV network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.130.252.119 (talk) at 23:38, 11 April 2010 (→‎What?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:British TV channels project

Pending tasks for ITV (TV network):

edit - history - watch - purge
  • Add additional references to the article, news sources would be a good start.

Archive

Hit Rock Bottom!

ITV have hit rock bottom with their programming. I don't even watch ITV anymore. Why do they use such AWFUL music during links? (ITV Logo + Music + some stupid scene). One piece of music goes "EEEOOORR EEEOOORRR" in a really high pitched singing voice .... sounds awful :-(

Can someone please put ITV out of its misery .....

You do hear more and more stories these days of how ITV is becoming unpopular. Maybe there should be something about this.--Santahul 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ITV consstantly re-runs the same stupid movies in approximately the same order:

1) About A Boy
2) Coming To America
3) American Pie
4) American Pie 2
5) American Pie 3
6) Police Academy
7) Police Academy 2
8) Police Academy 3
9) Police Academy 4

Turn your TV on on any given evening and its bound to be one of these films re-run over and over and over and over and over and over year after year after year after year after year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.7.78 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. --AxG @ ►talk 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map looks bizarre. Where are the Scottish Islands? --Augustusr 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, where are the Channel Islands? A big square that says 'Channel' doesn't count. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}} ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is able to fix it, sort out Northen Ireland, County Fermanagh is not that big, Thanks. theKeith 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up an adapted version now, with the Hebrides (though not Orkney or Shetland due to space issues), a modified Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands represented by a map, and using the colours of the 4 main ITV channels (I found the colours in the old one made my eyes bleed). Hopefully this version should be good enough, though if there's any issues let me know and I'll change it. --Daduzi talk 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does STV extend over Grampian's area on that map? I know SMG have rebranded both Scottish & Grampian to STV but they are still officially separate ITV franchise, the opposite to HTV, which is run as two services, ITV1 Wales & ITV 1 West, but is in reality one franchise and quite rightly displayed as such on that map.

I agree. It isn't accurate to show STV as one area, as that doesn't reflect the regional news/current affairs, etc the former Grampian still broadcasts. It would make more sense to have two coloured areas both marked 'STV'. Confusing, maybe, but more accurate than the current map. Also, sorry to be picky, but if the Channel Islands can be in their own boxes, why not Orkney and Shetland, just to the top left? --Stevouk 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Orkneys were left out because (AFAIK) they don't have their own fanchise, so it didn't seem worth including them just for completeness' sake. As to the STV/Grampian thing, if someone can dig up a decent quality (ie not .jpg) map showing the borders of the two I'll upload a new version. --Daduzi talk 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the old names - why "London" instead of "Carlton/LWT"? PMA 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

The "See also" section is way too long, and it duplicates links found in the article body. Could someone please do a cleanup here? Punkmorten 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3

On the subject of better specifying the difference between ITV Network and ITV plc, would this perhaps be an idea: To retitle the article 'Channel 3', which is the official name given by Ofcom (while still redirecting from 'ITV Network' and simply 'ITV')? I realise that nobody calls the network 'Channel 3' save Ofcom, but the advantages of this are that (a) it's technically more accurate, (b) it will allow us to introduce the concept of the ITV Network as a less 'official' name (or as a subsection of Channel 3) and thus to remove the ambiguity of the article title as opposed to ITV plc, and (c) make the content regarding the breakfast and teletext providers more appropriate, since technically GMTV and Teletext are indeed part of the 'Channel 3' providers but cannot really be described as part of the ITV Network, which only describes the regional licenses - rather they are national services. I propose 'Channel 3' as the main title, followed by subtitles for the 'regional Channel 3 network' (which could link to a separate ITV Network article if necessary?), the breakfast provider and the teletext provider, followed by a heading for 'Digital Channel 3', which is currently not mentioned as it also is not part of the Network.

Or is all this just pedantry? ;) Your thoughts, please! (In the meantime I've attempted to edit the introductory paragraph to state that it is the Network being discussed in this article, rather than ITV plc). —This unsigned comment was added by WizardT (talk • contribs) .

I agree: the use of the ITV name by ITV plc has led to a lot of confusion. If the current article is moved to Channel 3, maybe the new ITV article could be used as a disambiguation page - pointing to ITV plc and the new Channel 3 article? --Marknew 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree for one major reason, ITV is no longer one channel. Channel 3 is Ofcom's title for what we call ITV1. If you move this article to the Channel 3 article, you'll be putting ITV back as a singular channel along with ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV Channel, ITV Play, Men And Motors and anything else they have under the banner of ITV. That, to me, would make the new article even more confusing than this one already is. We need to find another way to avoid the confusion. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Independent Television (ITV)
TypeBroadcast television network
Country
United Kingdom
AvailabilityNational
OwnerITV Network
Key people
Charles Allen, CEO
Sir Peter Burt, Chairman
Launch date
September 22, 1955 (Associated-Rediffusion); other franchises followed later
Official website
www.itv.com

Since infoboxes are the in thing now, I though I'd offer up this to possibly go at the top of the page, given that most other broadcasters have a similar box. I've filled in all the details I could, all that's empty is the past_names field (which isn't relevant) and the slogan field, since I'm not aware of any current slogan for the company. --Daduzi talk 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One slight problem, its not owned by ITV plc, its owned by the ITV Network. ITV plc just happen to own far and away most of the franchises. --Kiand 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it, thanks for the info. --Daduzi talk 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I went ahead and added the infobox (which I'll confess I forgot all about) --Daduzi talk 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Programming Schedule

Does there need to be what looks like a copy of the listings for this week on this article? I can appreciate why someone's added it, but it's likely to get old very quickly. doktorrob™ 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was removed very quickly. Overenthusiastic anons and new editors are not a surprise on subjects like this one. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Programme dating?

I've noticed that several of ITV's older programmes have had their copyright dates changed to more recent years. For example, a number of the older Agatha Christie's Poirots made in the late eighties/early nineties have been appearing with copyright dates of as late as 2005 & 2006 at the end of the programme. In some other programmes the whole end-credits have been changed, e.g., Inspector Morse, again with much later copyright dates. Anyone know anything about this? - I know that ITV was criticised a while back for not making enough new programmes but this seems decidedly iffy. Ian Dunster 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for ITV plc?

I notice UTV and SMG both have category boxes for their pages. Should one for ITV plc be adopted? Marbles333 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to take all the ITV plc stuff out of the current template, to make it a Channel 3 box. UTV Internet and Virgin Radio are not on Template:ITV so why is ITV3 and Men and Motors?  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because we here are experts on ITV, but general viewers of the channel(s) and readers of the encyclopedia are not. We have to think of what our customers (and they are the readers, not the editors) expect of a navigation box. Do they expect everything - Virgin, UTV Internet etc - or do they expect the basics - the on-air names? Or do they want something inbetween? Do we need a List of ITV-related subjects and link to that? The BBC has one... ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made a quick one based on the SMG one, see here. Marbles333 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Franchise Area Changes from December 4

From December, for the formation of ITV Thames Valley, HTV West and Central are changing their franchise areas, as as far as I can gather:

  • Hannington Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Meridian West)
  • Oxford Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Central South)
  • Ridge Hill Tx will be going to ITV West (switching from Central South)

So concluding this, I have made a quick (shoddy!) idea on what the new franchise areas will look like for December (it's a rough guide made in MS Paint on the new boundaries based on those transmitters' coverage maps, its not official, and new region is shaded in Pink):

Click for image

When we know more about the region, I daresay the author of ITVmap.jpg can edit it accordingly (and unfortunately will have to re-colour coordinate it all over again! Marbles333 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a "franchise" though, its just a sub region that happens to be made up from two franchises. Do we have Central South and Meridian West on the franchise map? No... --Kiand 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there you're arguing that people who will be in the Thames Valley broadcast area will be watching Central South for example? It's been confirmed ITV Thames Valley will become a brand in its own right, and will not be connected on-air in any way to Meridian, Central or HTV (and therefore not a subregion of them), and those who fall in its broadcast footprint will recieve "ITV1 (Thames Valley)", not "ITV1 Meridian" or "ITV1 Central". The Meridian West sub-region and Central South sub region are being merged into ITV Thames Valley, and HTV West's broadcast area will be extended to cover the Ridge Hill transmitter. See Media Guardian Article another Media Guardian Article and Digital Spy discussion. Officially, I can't see it having an Ofcom-issued license, but on-air it will appear as a region in its own right. Anyway, be it real or not real, the surrounding franchises are changing their broadcast area. Nice rhetorical question Marbles333 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the "argument" is, its not a franchise so it should not appear on a franchise map. If the actual legal franchise boundaries change, that should be noted on the map, but it is not a franchise. --Kiand 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean the franchise map. There's one which displays the on-air names on the ITV article which is not official (as it uses "STV", "London" and "Wales"/"West" as appose to their legal identity). Apologies for the confusion. Marbles333 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV: Time for a reorganisation?

Just looking around the articles on ITV, I cant help thinking the whole lot is a bit of a confused mess. There seems to be some confusion among editors as to the different terms and names that are used and what they mean in different contexts. There is also a lot of duplication all over the place. For example, IMHO, both ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) are practically duplications of this article. Both History of ITV and ITV plc carry news of the NTL take-over. I think perhaps it is time for a reorganisation?

I realise that ITV is immensly complicated which makes deciding the structure difficult. However, to get the ball rolling, IMHO:

  • ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) should merge into ITV (this article). A page that discusses the whole network i.e. ITV (Channel 3), its history, its structure, and current programming without constantly refering to the network as ITV1 (a brand name, with limited geographical scope). i.e. ITV should be used as the generic term for the whole network. Perhaps if necessary this page can then be broken down into sub-pages such as structure, history, programming, etc?
  • ITV plc should be used to discuss ITV plc as it more or less does now.
  • History of ITV should be used to talk about the network in general terms, so shouldnt really have a discussion about a takeover of ITV plc, as it doesnt really affect the network as such.
  • ITV channels perhaps better as "list of ITV channels"? Should also refer to channel 3 by a generic name rather than ITV1. Perhaps listing regions as well?
  • Does ITV2 rumour really deserve its own article? Would it not be better merged into ITV2
  • I'm not sure how encyclopedic ITV Network Continuity Announcers is? even if it is, how correct is the title? Do stv and UTV have there own contintuity? If they do, shouldnt it be "ITV1 Continuity Announcers", or given that it also dicusses other channels "ITV plc Continuity Announcers"?

So what do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree the Channel 3 article is in a bit of a mess - all it needs really is an explanation saying its a legal formality - it doesn't need to go into depth about the franchise holders as the ITV articles do that. History of ITV - that seems in an okay order at the moment but I agree, ITV plc has bugger all to do with the franchise holders in reality. Plus ITV plc is a fairly new company, so does it need to be mentioned in a article titled "History of ITV"? It should also be mentioned that the article is the history of the ITV Network, not ITV plc the company or any other ITV channels. Perhaps we should have an ITV Network article for the modern discussion of Channel 3 franchise holders only - nothing about ITV2, 3 etc - just pure franchsies and companies. The ITV article can generally go into most things.

It must also be included in the ITV1 article that it is not really a channel in itself, more of a generic name used by twelve franchise holders rather than their own names - it is a brand name. It never has been a "channel" and never will be. A clear difference needs to be made between ITV, ITV Plc and regional companies - I suggest never to use just "ITV" when referring to ITV plc as this may cause confusion. The ITV template (page footer) also seems to be getting "too big" and goes into depth about digital channels and web portals - perhaps there should be a Channel 3 infobox, then one for ITV plc, SMG plc, UTV plc and so on. Marbles333 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarding this, should ITV1 get an ITV Franchisee infobox instead of a TV channel one - it's not a channel just a cover-up franchise name Marbles333 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. I shall change the infobox now. --tgheretford (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, hold off changing it for a minute. The {{Infobox ITV franchisee}} needs a few changes (predominately the addition of a "changed names" field) before it could be used in the ITV1 article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be got around in this way, don't you think? Channel Television is more or less still with us, so I couldn't really include it in some points of the infobox. Marbles333 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ITV Network Continuity Announcers sounds completely pointless. There is already a Continuity Announcer article which seems perfectly sufficient for this purpose. ITV2 rumour has been merged into ITV2 now, which has a history section to which I gave somewhat of an overhaul, recently. I think this is sufficient for the purpose of explaining pre 1990s ITV2 now. Fursday 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITV & Channel 3 (UK) Merger

As discussed above, I have proposed a merger of ITV and Channel 3 (UK). AFAICT they are basically the same thing and do actually cover the same content. After second thoughts, as mentioned by others, I think there is a place for a much reduced ITV1 article discussing that ITV1 is a brand-name but not the history of the network or programming, etc Pit-yacker 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about keep Channel 3 and just mention that it's a legal formality issued by Ofcom, franchise-based, every 10 years and it started in 1955. It still needs an expanation IMO . EDIT: Bad move merging the History of ITV article - not relavant anymore.Marbles333 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not sure what you mean by merging History of ITV. I think that and ITV should stay as separate articles. The current history section in this article is very long and in that respect I think separate articles are justified. However, I think there is a bit of shifting around needed - for example the history section of this article should IMHO be a very breif summary of the longer article - AFAICT, at the moment, it more or less covers everything in the history article. Also the History article previously had issues such as future, which does not really fit in an article on history IMHO. Pit-yacker 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, all I asked was why there is information duplicated from the History article onto this one, such as pre 1993 franchise rounds? Marbles333 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two should absolutely not be merged because they are about two separate entities. ITV is the company that *currently* holds the Channel 3 licence, but is not Channel 3. The articles should reflect this.--81.179.77.251 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong there. ITV does not own any franchises; it is a network of 15 regional channel 3 broadcasters, and is more commonly known as the ITV Network. ITV plc owns eleven of the 15 franchises on the ITV Network. Since the term ITV (not ITV plc) describes the channel 3 network, it is realistically the same thing; the name "ITV Network" existed before the name Channel 3 anyhow (Channel 3 is just the generic name used by Ofcom and has been used since 1993). However, I believe the channel 3 article should be scaled down, just explaining it is a legal formality, gifted broadcast space and how the franchises work, but information on the companies itself should remain on the ITV article. Marbles 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Immediately - Channel 3 (UK) is a poor article in many aspects, while everyone knows that very poor OfCom reference as ITV. Rgds, - Trident13 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support - Channel 3 is just a formal name for ITV (which previous to 1993 had no formal name of its own). We really don't need an separate article to explain this.

Programmes Section

Any ideas how this might be tidied up? IMHO it could do with a rewrite. Perhaps looking at some of ITV's older and more notable programming? IMHO the likes of 2DTV arent programmes that we will look back at in 10 years time. Pit-yacker 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section

I see that a lot of changes have been made in the ITV article. One thing I don't like is that the history section is way too short. The history is currently summarized into six lines, while other less crucial information get more coverage.

If the article is supposed to give the reader an understanding of what ITV is and how it works, you must have a longer history section. The previous history section gave the reader a brief view on the history of ITV in 2-3 minutes. I would therefore think that the article would be better if the History section was restored as it was before December 17 (although one can shrink it slightly). Väsk 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the old history section had everything that was in the History of ITV article. I dont see how it would be easy to reduce the original significantly. Therefore, the alternative IMHO would be to merge History of ITV into ITV.
As the history section is quite detailled, I thought it was deserving of its own article. At that point rather than duplicate the same information in two articles (IMHO a very bad thing as it means that (a) with time the articles will almost certainly start to contradict each other and (b) the reader will need to read both to get the full picture as information is added to different articles by different authors) it is sensible to have a brief summary with a link to the history article to avoid the ITV article being too long making both easier to read. In that respect I see History of ITV as a "sub-article" of ITV to keep the article size under control.Pit-yacker 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additional, vital information this morning to the history section. Specifically, details about the 10-week ITV strike in 1979 -- the longest in television history. I am far from finished with this research. When I started this morning, a simple task turned into a huge one, so I will come back to this later.Toropop (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Regional Companies Official Name changes

On 29 December 2006, the following ITV companies officially changed their names:

See http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk and search under "ITV" - URL linking is not supported. So that signalled the death knell for HTV then. Marbles 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 29th Dec was only last Friday (and Companies House can be slow at these things), it will be interesting (and worth keeping an eye out) to see if the other ITV companies change. It also might be sensible to move articles to their new name and start articles as:
'''ITV <region name>''' (formerly known as '''<name>''').
Pit-yacker 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digging a bit more there are a few more subtle changes:
  • Anglia Television changed its name to ITV Broadcasting Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Broadcasting Ltd changed its name to Anglia Television (Nature of business not stated).
  • Carlton Television changed its name to ITV Consumer Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Consumer Ltd changed its name to Carlton Television (Nature of business: Non-trading company)
Pit-yacker 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Change

AFAICT the column I changed was the name of the "Franchise Holder". Surely if the company that holds the franchise changes its name that name is the new name of the franchise holder? Whether this tallies with the name that Ofcom currently display on their website (perhaps better entitled "Official Franchise Name") is surely irrelevant? Pit-yacker 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was a good idea because in addition, Scottish Television Ltd has now re-named as STV Central Ltd, and Grampian Television Ltd has re-named as STV North Ltd, so where does that show the true company that was licenced to broadcast that franchise? Plus at the time (1993), they (the companies as they were) were to companies who signed the contract, not its re-named title. For example who actually knows HTV Group Ltd as ITV Wales and West Ltd, and the franchise certainly isn't in the name of ITV Wales and West Ltd. Just a thought anyway. Marbles 19:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Television and Channel 3

Two points here really. First off, have we reached a consensus on whether or not to Merge Channel 3 into here (with appropriate explanation and redirect)? I strongly support this merger, because I think that there can be no reasonable or accurate dispute of the fact that the two do refer to the same thing, however ITV is a much older and more established name for the network. Either we call this article one or the other, not have two articles.

Which brings me on to my second point: Should this article actually be called Independent Television rather than ITV? General Wikipedia trends for abbreviations edge on the side of spelling them out in full (see WP:NCA) and the added advantages of Independent Television for the name of the article would be that it would further the distinction between ITV Plc and ITV proper, and reflect the fact that for many years after its establishment, Independent Television was generally used over the abbreviated form, which didn't really come into common parlance until, what, the late 1960s, early '70s? Further more, it would make far more obvious the associations with Independent Television News, the Independent Television and Independent Broadcasting Authorities, and the Independent Television Commission.

Thoughts? -- Fursday 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered "real" ITV to be known as ITV Network with the Carlton/Granada company known as ITV plc, however I think perhaps the name "ITV" is more well known for its purpose over "ITV Network", which is rarely used these days. Before merging Channel 3 (UK), make sure all the required legal information that's on that page moves over to the ITV page, perhaps under the "organisation" section. /Marbles 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ITV Network is one of the many names, but I wouldn't call it definitive. The term didn't really exist in ITV's formative years when independent television was used, referring to the type of television of which both the network and the constituting broadcasters were described as being. Also wasn't the ITV Network some sort of organisation that existed in the 80s and 90s prior to the mass take-overs, where commissions would be handled on behalf of all companies as a group, and other group activities such as network trailer commissioning took place? There was certainly an 'ITV Network Centre' which implies to me that the ITV Network was something specific rather than a generic term for ITV itself. I don't really know that much about this particular subject, but it is something that perhaps ought to be covered by those more expert than myself? In short, the fact that the various terms used to describe ITV can mean various different things and have differing contexts relating to them make this whole process all the more difficult.

Anyway, I'll process the merge now. -- Fursday 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future section

This article contains speculations about the launch of a movie channel and some paragraphs on minor recent events about ITV Play and websites. Considering this isn't really about the ITV network, that it is definitely less notable than the likes of Thames, Rediffuison etcetera which are never mentioned in the article and that gives recent events unproportionally much space, I think these sections should be moved to ITV plc or History of ITV. Väsk 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all needs referencing as per WP:V and WP:RS before (and if) it gets moved anywhere. At the moment, without verification, it fails WP:NOT#CBALL. --tgheretford (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglia Television Ltd

To clarify, the company ANGLIA TELEVISION LIMITED does indeed exist.

Prior to December 2006, there was a company named ITV BROADCASTING LTD and of course ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD. On 29 December 2006, the company ITV BROADCASTING LTD changed its name to ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD, and at the same time, ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD became ITV BROADCASTING LTD.

In effect, a simple swap. You can find both entries on the CompaniesHouse website. The licence holder remains as Anglia Television Ltd for the forseeable future.

/Marbles 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does ITV have an official logo? The logo used at the top of this page is clearly the ITV plc logo, but can this be considered the logo of ITV as a whole (the subject of this article) or not? -- Fursday 03:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fursday here. This is the ITV plc logo, but I do not know if the overall ITV does have a logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabetagamma123 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is the de facto logo of the ITV network as well as being that of ITV plc. ITV has had a number of network logos over the years which have been used to a greater or lesser extent by various ITV regions; the current one is no different and appears on ITV News, ITV Weather and ITV Sport programmes that are carried by STV and UTV - and the logo is used generally by Channel TV. Similarly I believe the individual regional companies hold the licence for ITV2 in their regions - so although they used to broadcast as S2 and UTV2, they now both broadcast as ITV2, using the ITV logo. DrFrench (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have any objections to renaming this article Independent Television? For a start it adds a nice level of differentiation between this article and ITV plc and it is, after all, it's full name. -- Fursday 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it brands itself ITV and its common name is most definatly ITV. The plc bit adds enough differentiation, at least for me. Narson (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do let's use common names; this would be doubly embarassing if there is another Independent Television somewhere. (I see there was one not long ago.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The common name is ITV, so oppose the proposed rename. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose too, we need to stick to common usage and it is known as ITV, both by the public and by itself, eg itv.com. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't itv.com ITV plc's website, not ITV's? Already you see where the confusion lies? -- Fursday 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose independant television has no relation to ITV, which is a network of affiliates (which is a normal network in the US) 70.51.8.129 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No relation other than being what the initials 'ITV' stand for... Whilst similar there are notable differences between the UK ITV (Channel 3) and the US affiliate system. -- Fursday 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that ITV isn't indepedent television, it is a TV network, and therefore not independent. The only thing independent about ITV is that it is not the BBC. 70.51.8.129 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't alter the fact that ITV stands for Independent Television. That's what the initials mean. -- Fursday 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The initials may have come from that phrase, but the brand is the initials, not the phrase, which has other uses that directly oppose the brand. This move would increase confusion, not decrease it. htom (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Having looked further, they appear to be embarking on a renaming program, and "Independant Television" seems to be neither in their old set of names nor in the new set. Let it stay ITV, please, leaving the phrase to indicate what it says -- television that's not programmed by a network. htom (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Common usage is ITV, as this discussion makes clear; see WP:MOSTRADE and WP:Official name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ITV vs Independent Television vs independent television

One of the confusing things to USAians is that the UK seems to have two TV networks, one called the BBC (perhaps with a number following it, BBC4), and one called ITV (again, perhaps with a number, ITV3.) Our (USAian) networks are called ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and a handful of others that come and go. None of them have any channel numbers assigned to them. The three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) provide roughly twenty hours of daytime and thirty hours of evening programming per week, which their affiliates (in general) must carry; the content is dictated by the network management. "Independent television" to us (USAians) is a station that doesn't have such a network affiliation and programs itself. It looks to me (having learned a tiny bit about UK broadcasting today) that the BBC and ITV are what we (USAians) would consider to be "major networks", or maybe "networks of major networks", in that they each seem to program several major networks for the UK. If this understanding is correct, perhaps the article could somehow make note of this different perspective for readers of different backgrounds. Thanks, htom (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a response to this question at User_talk:OtterSmith, as it is a bit off topic for here -- Fursday 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; it's even more confusing than I thought it was! htom (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITV companies - proposal

I tabled an idea relating to the ITV companies articles a few weeks ago on Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_TV_channels but nobody seems to have picked up on it, so I thought I'd draw attention here:

(link to talk page)

-- Fursday 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Future" and "The Future" sections

Any reason why there are two similar titled sections in the article? Thanks. 210.49.129.188 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please update

The merger of many news regions has now taken place, yet the article still covers it as a proposal. There's also nothing about the very strong public objections to this in some regions (Border, for one). 86.132.142.153 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

friends reunited

ion of itv's purchase of the friends reunited website for £120m, plus £50m in bonuses; they are now trying to sell it, hopefully for £50m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.122.105 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's called ITV1

I don't want to go over old ground, but the whole channel (all regions) is called ITV1.

ITV (the channel, not the organisation) was renamed ITV1 in 2001[1]. The decision was taken by ITV Network Ltd, which is made up of all the ITV franchise holders. At the time, all the franchises used their franchise names on air, so it made little difference.

A whole year later, the Carlton and Granada-owned franchises began using the ITV1 name on air, in place of the franchise names.

Two years down the line, Carlton and Granada merged, becoming ITV plc.

I've proved this is the case several times over (see Talk:Freeview/Archive 1, but always come up against the following arguments, by people who refuse to accept that ITV was renamed ITV1:

  • The brand is only used on the ITV plc-owned franchises
    • True, but the other franchises use their own names, not 'ITV' - the whole channel is still called ITV1
  • The decision to rename the channel was taken by ITV plc
    • They didn't exist for another three years - the decision was taken by ITV Network Ltd, a consortium of all the franchise-holders
  • The other franchises didn't take up the name
    • A non-argument; no-one used it straight away (it was another year) and if the other franchises choose to continue using their franchise names, that's their decision - it does not affect the name of the whole channel
  • The non-ITV franchises never use the name when referring the whole channel
    • Yes, they do: Channel took on the name and STV frequently use it when referring to the national channel[2][3]

Point proven.

I have never been provided with any evidence that the whole channel is still called 'ITV'. Most arguments I get back are that the non-ITV plc regions don't use the name ITV1 on air, which is a different matter entirely.

So, why is this article still insisting that ITV was never renamed ITV1? - Green Tentacle (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument would make a lot more sense if this argument was called 'Channel 3' but we've been down that road before... The point is this article exists, alongside ITV1 for the same reason that there are BBC and BBC1 articles. This article refers to the network of Channel 3 franchisees who also own half a multiplex that contains ITV2 etc. -- Fursday 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully support this article being akin to BBC and BBC One (one for the owner, one for the channel). However, a lot of this article still refers to ITV as a channel. Things have got better recently, though. Nevertheless, the denial of the whole channel being renamed ITV1 does remain. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

If anywhere, it needs to be merged into ITV Plc or ITV1. -- Fursday 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regional variations

Shouldn't the current number of regional variations be mentioned? I count

  • 14 ITV plc owned regions (the 10 georgraphic regions, with Central, Westcountry and Meridian split into subregions), as seen at itv.com/local
  • 2 STV regions
  • Channel and UTV
  • Makes 18 regions in total
  • 24 advertising regions according to http://www.thinkbox.tv/server/show/nav.916

How does this tally with the 9 regions mentioned in the map caption?

Walt111 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscounted ITV plc regions. There are 13, making 17 in total; 24 advertising regions; and 13 regions of Teletext (going from the regional news on Teletext's website)

Walt111 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

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! --213.130.252.119 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ITV_(TV_network)&oldid=355427622"