Talk:TV listings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:TV listings (UK))

Digiguide[edit]

Do not restore unsourced material to this article. Do we have any evidence that digiguide are up there with BDS & PA as a lisitngs provider. I think not. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this article is sourced. We have no source for BDS & PA as providers either. However, I'm now adding in a source for digiguide. Perhaps you'll do the same for the other two before they get deleted for being unreferenced... FunkyCanute (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that BDS and PA provide listings so I am not going to dispute that, I dont know the same for digiguide. And you havent provided a 3rd party source that they offer tv listings to other providers. Until you do this material cannot stay. You are of course free to not take my word forr it and remove the BDS and PA until we get sources for them too, that would be fine within the guidelines here. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I 'know' that all three provide listings. I have also linked to their site where the offer of listings is provided. Please do not remove again. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you claim to know is irrelevant, you must provide a 3rd party ref because that is what wikipedia policies say, you cant claim personal kn owledge as a get out clause. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what I know is irrelevant, hence what I write. It is referenced. Please stop your vandalism FunkyCanute (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I really think TV listings (UK) should be merged into Broadcast programming. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia articles are cover a subject; they're not about individual terms. That's why we have one article on gasoline/petrol: Same thing, different terms. This would also give us the opportunity to compare and contrast how programming is approached in the US vs the UK, which might be interesting. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are two related subjects but are quite different. Broadcast programming is about the scheduling strategies that broadcasters use. For example, you could screen a drama in five parts on each weekday or you could screen it once-a-week over five weeks. Meanwhile, TV listings are the way in which the schedule is exposed to the viewing public. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I was proposing a merge this way because TV guide currently redirects to broadcast programming, and TV listings is a dab page leading either here or there. Perhaps the better thing to do would be to turn TV listings into its own article, and merge the content currently at TV listings (UK) in to TV listings? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems tv guide redirects to broadcast programming, which is strange. I agree there is little reason to have a separate page for TV listings (UK) and the material from it could be merged into TV listings. Meanwhile, TV guide should probably redirect to TV listings.FunkyCanute (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that TV guide 's destination needs to be reconsidered. A short article on the history of TV listings in the UK does have merit - the monopoly situation was more complicated than the current article makes out because newspapers could print on the day listings for decades before 1991, whilst the monopoly advanced listings magazines were often a lucrative or even essential source of income for some of the smaller ITV stations. Explaining how & why the monopoly came about and then how it was abandoned seems pretty reasonable. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radio programming should be merged into Broadcast programming as well. Other solution: Separate radio and television and move broadcast programming to Television programming (redirect). --Atonepled (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it makes sense to merge the article into the Broadcast programming article. TV listings are a type of magazine that provides information for viewers. If anything, this article should be restructured instead to eliminate the UK-centric focus and broaden it to focus on the history of TV listings, print and electronic in a worldwide view. A retitling to "television listings" may also be needed should this occur. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved. See just enough support in this debate to rename these pages as requested. Closer's note: Added the dab page to this request since that page move is necessary to facilitate this one, and the bot did leave a notice on the dab's talk page on 10 April 2018. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– This term is not UK-specific, and moving this to primary will encourage further expansion. The current primary dab is almost useless and misleading, since broadcast programming is a topic about how broadcasters make choices of what to put on, not about how viewers get information. electronic program guides exist, but is focused on the digital distribution of schedules on set-top boxes, "TV listings" is more about schedules accessed from paper and internet. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.  samee  converse  11:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that the name 'TV listings' is not UK-specific, and that TV listings refers to printed listings and not toe set-top box EPGs, I disagree that this article should be retitled as TV Listings as an article of that name should be about TV listings in general and not about TV listings in the UK. Rillington (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point - the current title prevents expansion. It should be not just about the UK TV listings, but how listings have been done throughout TV history and how they are provided around the world. We have no need to separate TV listings articles by country - the topic should be contained in one article, named neutrally. -- Netoholic @ 21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you make a valid point, but the wikipedia community can expand this into a series of articles about TV listings in individual countries. I think it comes down to choice. You would prefer an all-encompassing article, which I presume would be a definition of what TV listings are followed by a country-by-country summary, whereas I would prefer separate articles for individual countries, not least because a single article would mean that a significant amount of information currently provided for the UK would have to be left out. I do think that if the decision is to keep things as they are, a better article title for this article would be "TV listings in the UK" Rillington (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename - Any move should be to Television listings rather than the abbreviated form as the Television parent article is there, not at TV, and we should be aiming for consistency. This was recently the case when the nom suggested moving TV program to TV show. While I can completely understand Rillington's reasoning I do agree that a move to TV listings would allow, and possibly encourage, expansion of the article. As it stands it's not much better than a stub so inclusion of TV listings from other countries would not bloat the article. I don't agree that a significant amount of information currently provided for the UK would have to be left out. That can and should be retained and similar information for other countries can be included until such time as the article is too large. At that time the UK section could be split out to its own article but this would remain the umbrella article. I do note that the lead image is not even a UK image, which I find somewhat amusing. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is taken to rename this article as per Netoholic's suggestion, I do agree that it should be titled television listings rather than TV listings. Rillington (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You claimed that "TV show" was more common than "TV program" but the decision was still made to rename to "Television show" for quite valid reasons (well, the "television" part of it at least). We should be consistent when renaming. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't simply "claim" it, I provided verifiable evidence both there and here. "Consistency" is just one of the article title WP:CRITERIA (and its last on the list). "TV listings" satisfies all 4 others: it is more Recognizable and Natural because it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME, it is clearly more Concise, and as to Precision, let's call it a draw. We should never ignore these other criteria. If you have any evidence to offer do so, but if you don't, then accept mine and accept how that evidences informs us as to the CRITERIA. -- Netoholic @ 19:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think "television listings" has any advantages over "TV listings". The same goes for shows, it should be at TV show. The article on the topic itself is fine at television, but other related topics can easily be at TV, I don't see a major consistency problem with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

First 10[edit]

It’s odd that you say when TV Guide was launched it was “sold across ten U.S. cities” but don’t name them. Then when 5 more editions were added in the summer of 1953, you do name them: Pittsburgh, Rochester, Detroit, Cleveland and San Francisco. The identity of the second 5 is more significant than the first 10?

Or perhaps you simply don’t know the first 10. They were New York City, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore, Los Angeles, Chicago-Milwaukee (as “Great Lakes”), Cincinnati-Dayton, Quad Cities, and Minneapolis. Well, 12 cities, counting the Quad Cities as one city, although the Great Lakes edition had other cities as well, but 10 editions. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:5D90:3D83:D764:4E00 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TV_listings&oldid=1205791121"