Talk:ITV Central

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Central News South[edit]

I'm very much in favour of Accurizer's proposal to merge Central News South into this article. There is little or nothing to be said about the three Central News programmes to make decent standalone articles. But expanding the existing sections in this article would be of benefit to the general reader and to the article itself.

I recommend Accurizer be bold and do it, redirecting the pretty empty CNS article to this one. ➨ REDVERS 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The list of names in Central News South and Central News West differs from the list in Central Independent Television. I would like someone familiar with the programs (ahem... programmes) to confirm which list(s) are accurate. Accurizer 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about merging them all into one new article, Central News? I don't think that one particular programme should dominate this article. --kingboyk 02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Central logos[edit]

I've always liked Central's colourful logos, and the jingles that accompanied their idents[1][2]. Central had several of their big logos mounted on walls of the reception area at their studios on Broad Street[3]. -- Jack Blueberry (t)(c) •  17:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After Henry[edit]

Can someone please stop listing After Henry as a Central programme? It was most definitely a Thames programme (and, I suppose, previously a BBC Radio 4 series). RobinCarmody 11:00 pm BST, 31 July 2006

ITV Regional Companies Official Name changes[edit]

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 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Centraltv-90logo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Centraltv-90logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


Save_Us_229 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I realise this may be a controversial proposal, but here goes. The company has been legally known as ITV Central since the end of 2006 (this can be checked at Companies House), and the channel has been identified as such on air for some considerable time. Central Independent Television no longer exists in any tangible form. The same applies to Meridian Broadcasting, HTV and Border Television. Gr1st (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this time and time again over the past 12 months, and the conclusion made was to retain the present system of the older, more well-known names. See also Talk:ITV, Talk:Meridian Broadcasting, Talk:Border Television and Talk:HTV. /Marbles (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as time goes on, the newer names will become more familiar, and the case for renaming the pages is strengthened. Already, I would recognize "ITV Central" sooner than "Central Independent Television". I'm not sure what should be done. Sam Staton (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Having searched the relevant talk pages, I can find no definitive consensus that the status quo should remain. In any case, the problem as I see it is that the rather woolly quantity "name recognition" is being given too heavy a weighting in the decision-making process here. How do you measure it? Who calls the station "Central Independent Television"? Hardly anyone, I'd wager. If that is the case, there is no rationale for keeping the article at a name which no longer exists in any shape or form. Gr1st (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe re-naming four of the eleven ITV plc franchises is inconsistent because, although only four have adopted a formal name in "ITV Somethingorother", ALL eleven ITV plc owned regions use the ITV brand on-air prior to a regional name. Border Television spent 40 years+ under the name Border Television, and 2 under "ITV Border"! HTV is another example. I live in the HTV coverage area, and I don't know a single person who names the channel "ITV1 Wales"; its still HTV. And again, HTV existed for 33 years as HTV, and only 2 as ITV Wales & West Ltd. As for Central, you say nobody will call it "Central Independent Television". Quite true, however in the same way, nobody calls it "ITV Central" either (which effectively is the same name albeit backtofront); the term most use is "Central". Incorrectly, many use "Central Television", which has never been the official name, so when speaking technically of the Company's history, most likely "Central Independent Television" would fit. Again, we're talking over 20 years of being known as one thing. The preciseness required is within the article, the title is irrelevent, even with the ITV plc cover-up. As per WP:UCN, I personally would not use these ITV plc 'modern' cover-up names, of which in reality, are a tiny technicality of the whole organisation. /Marbles (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a case for HTV staying put, and I won't argue with this. But the move doesn't have to be done consistently. I don't think related articles have to have consistent names. (I have come up against this before, anyway.) Sam Staton (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I sympathise with some of the points made above, but take issue with some of the others. Following the "x number of years as foo, y number of years as ITV foo" argument to its logical conclusion, should Sky Arts still be housed at Artsworld because the channel was known by that name between 2000 and 2007? Normally if a company, TV station, magazine, etc. changes its name, the title of the relevant Wikipedia article is changed accordingly. The fact that the ITV franchise articles are treated differently seems to me to be a bit of an anachronism. Gr1st (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you've hit the nail on the head there haven't you. ITV franchises are not television channels, but companies of a particular television channel, ITV. Artsworld has only been around for five minutes in comparison with ITV. As far as most people are concerned who are interested in this field, "ITV Suchorsuch" is generally less accepted, and out in the 'real-world', are rarely used. The idea of article ITV Wales and West is very pedantic. We could not have ITV Wales / ITV West as separate articles, because within five minutes of separation, there'd be a merge tag on it. Their histories are one and the same. As far as most people are concerned, that company is HTV, rather than the very long ITV Wales and West, which now in reality, have little to do with one another. But then you may say, what happens to the rest of the ITV franchises which have not been renamed, Granada Television for example? Surely one of the biggest names in television wouldn't be reduced to ITV Granada. But since it hasn't, the Wikipedia title would be kept the same, and things would be all over the place. How about Grampian Television? Why is that still around when legally it is now STV North? For the consistency and name knowledge, I wouldn't re-name them. /Marbles (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A solution?[edit]

Rather than being pedantic, how about we just admit what is for all intents and purposes the is case; that these companies don't really exist any more. Rather than treating HTV, Central Independent Television, Carlton television and all the others as present day broadcasters, treat them as former ITV franchisees like [TWW or TVS, with the scope of the articles ending the day ITV plc was formed*. Then just stick an explanation that the registered businesses still exist in a legal sense, with parts of the former operations now subdivisions of ITV, and named as such. The current day history of these companies could then be continued at ITV plc.

There is already an established precedent for this with Associated TeleVision. Associated TeleVision did not loose its franchise nor did it cease to exist as a company, rather it was restructured and renamed, in much the same way as is the case with the amalgamations which lead to ITV plc. If you applied the same logic to this article as is being applied here, the Associated TeleVision article wouldn't exist, rather it would be part of Central Independent Television, and in turn ITV Central, which would just be plain stupid. Furthermore, it is also highly likely that the regional identities of ITV will one day vanish altogether, so if we followed this logic to its extreme, one day everything would just end up as one article!

We need some common sense here: These companies prior to the mergers and take-overs, are of important encyclopaedic importance. When you weigh it up, they are more important than the internal structures of what is now ITV plc and should be treated as such, just as common sense dictates that Associated TeleVision and Central Independent Television warrant two separate articles.

(* As an aside, I'd also like to put the idea out that Central Independent Television and Westcountry Television end at the point at which they become Carlton Television with the latter covering three franchise areas, rather than just London Weekdays)

-- Fursday 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All of that seems pretty sensible. As I see it, the crux of the matter is that defunct titles are currently being used for articles on services still in existence. I don't have a problem with a separate article on Central Independent Television, for example, being retained with information on the franchise in years past (i.e. before the ITV plc merger). But for information on the existing ITV Central service to sit under this title seems very odd. Gr1st (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not again... It would appear that someone's moved this article with no consensus reached (also done with HTV). Oh dear. Malpass93 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna be bold and move this back until a consensus can be reached. Malpass93 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand by the above comments I made in March. The problem is, this needs to be actioned across the board for all of the franchise articles. Beyond that ITV itself needs a hell of a lot of work doing to it as it is a complete dog's breakfast at the moment. Problem is, there seems to be very little interest in the ITV related articles at the moment and not much in the way of a pro-active community. When I raised the above comments in the ITV talk page around the same time, they fell on death ears... -- Fursday 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of seeing them as defunct franchisees, a la ATV and TVS, but ultimately do not see many agreeing with us. I don't see the sense in generating loads of articles named "ITV <insert franchise here>", as it will confuse those unfamiliar with the topics, as these people will inevitably (albeit with good intentions) try to do the same with the pre-1993 franchises, creating chaos. Malpass93 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carltonitv1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Carltonitv1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Yorkshire Television - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Font[edit]

What is the font Central used from 1982 to 1998? 123.2.142.50 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are for improving the articles, and not for WP:Forum type questions. However the font you are looking for is 'Erbar Neo Mini'. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. That explains it. 123.2.142.50 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The degree of summary[edit]

Let's see how we can move forward with this detail. The problem is, information about central is very thin on the ground on the internet, which is somewhat surprising, thus this page needs to hold as much information (even in a summary form) as possible for the reader/users to get a good grip. A number of other ITV pages do contain a good amount of details even after a umpteen other people "copyed edited the pages" since I slotted in much needed new information. It seems the consinces seems to be moving towards Full detailed page while not over-whiling the reader. Of course making sure what is placed here has to be useful hence the reason the new TSMS page which was created freeing up space. Where would you place the detailed information into history, operations, programming? Other problem is the edit to Question of Leadership is still misleading. one point--IBA never stopped the series going ahead nor did it reduced it to a two parts. If it helps I will upload copy of the main report?--Crazyseiko (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New REF[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ITV Central. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ITV Central. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)