[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:ITV2

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

Merged S2 and UTV2 into ITV2

[edit]

I've merged S2 and UTV2 into ITV2 as I don't think there's a lot that can be done to those two articles mainly due to the stations having been defunct for around 5 years. I can't imagine the articles will get any real traffic and would be of more use to people interested in the history of ITV2. Seems a shame to leave the S2 and UTV2 articles as stubs when they add quite a bit of history to that of ITV2. AA Milne 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not the type of thing we usually have discussions/votes about, before hand?  Keithology  "Talk"  15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both pages now re-direct here and I feel make more sense and are more helpful being under ITV2. I don't mind at all if you want to discuss the articles be de-merged though. AA Milne 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, UTV2 and S2 were complete different entities to ITV2. They bore no relation with ITV2 with the exception they used the same broadcast space. On the DTT multiplex, it's up to the Channel 3 provider on what to do with the extra space, and Carlton/Granada came up with the idea of launching a syndicated channel accross all their franchises (and UBM's). SMG and Ulster decided against this, and launched their own. Even now, SMG or UTV could replace all the extra ITV channels on their mux in their regions and replace them with their own, but I should imagine it is more cost-effective to use London ones and also to emphasise the ITV2 brand; I daresay it would be more well known than UTV2 and S2 if they still existed. But the same happened with BBC Choice Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; digital channels seem to be more efficient when they're national. However, it is possible SMG and UTV could get opt-out hours of ITV2 and use a name such as "ITV2 Scotland", which would still be well known because of the ITV2 name. Its a shame there isnt that much info online about S2 and UTV2. Marbles333 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ka-ka, is my version of merged of S2 (Scottish) and UTV2 (Northern Ireland) channels, S2 closed on 2001, a UTV2 closed on 2002, replaced of ITV2. is GMC version - good life, and version blocked on text! Bacr13 9:26, 31 February 2012 (Kiev Time)

List of programmes shown on ITV2

[edit]

I have created an article for you all to add a full list of programmes on the channel. List of programmes on ITV digital channels. I think it makes sense to have a seperate article, so as we don't clutter up this one. GMc 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of channel lists on articles

[edit]

There is currently a debate I started due to the deletion of a article which contains lists of notable programmes on ITV2/3/4. The discussion is here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV channels#Notable programmes on channel articles. --tgheretford (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel alert

[edit]
The channel has an on-screen logo at all times during its programming output, which is not removed during advertisement breaks. Some viewers think that this makes the channel appear cheap and down-market.

And who might they be? 195.93.21.98 10:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i edited this article to try to remove the weasel words.Yet-another-user 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While these changes were fair enough, the channel retains a very downmarket feel almost 4 years later, and some reference to this in the article would be appropriate. The programming is obviously chosen to appeal to a particular demographic, and the channel is widely referred to as 'ITV Chav' and 'ITV Asbo' in Britain. --Ef80 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still the same programming mix over 5 years later. --Ef80 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of ITV2 and ITV2 rumour

[edit]

Further to the tidy up of ITV related articles that I discussed in Talk:ITV. I propose that this article and ITV2 rumour should be merged. IMHO, the contents of ITV2 rumour, would be better placed in a section within the ITV2 article on the origins/history of ITV2, as that is really what it is. I also dont really think that it was a rumour, it was more of an expectation that the fourth channel in the UK would be ITV2. Pit-yacker 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV2 of the '70s and '80s really doesn't have much to do with the ITV2 of today, and they share no connection other than the name. I think that section would fit much better in the history of Channel 4 (which essentially was ITV2) or a separate article. Väsk 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Utv2.gif

[edit]

Image:Utv2.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

As I see it, the problem with this article is that it essentially covers two distinct topics-

  • The proposed second commercial television station during the 60s and 70s, and
  • The present-day digital-only station that started in 1998

Realistically, the parts covering these would be separate articles under any other circumstances. The only reason they're combined here is that they happen to share the same name (and in the case of the original "ITV2", this was just an unofficial placeholder name for a vague idea). This, of course, hasn't stopped other similarly-named but distinct concepts having their own separate articles.

I note that there previously *was* such an article (see it here). It was merged after this discussion. (I understand the desire to tidy up and merge in general- I'm no fan of excessively split and pointlessly stubby articles- but I don't agree with that one, and indeed it looks like it was lumped together with a bunch of other tidy-up and merge proposals and not much discussed in its own right).

I would propose noting the existence of the old "ITV2" in the present-day article, but only briefly and only to provide context. (Perhaps this was why it was originally included here, but whatever the reason, it's now clearly grown into a sub-article covering the old ITV2 in its own right).

Whether the old "ITV2" material should have its own article, or whether it should be merged into History of ITV or similar, either of these options would still be preferable to retaining it here.

Ubcule (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it is notable enough for it's own article. A good parallel situation is the articles for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC Radio 5 (former) - previously one article but split. In that situation, the two have very different remits and style; I'm not sure that the old ITV2 is that different. As a rumour there was so little substance, I don't think it warrants its own article - if anything merge the details into History of ITV and reference on the ITV2 article. Rafmarham (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"I'm not sure that the old ITV2 is [as different in remit and style as the old and new Radio 5]."
I couldn't disagree more with that bit. :-)
I don't even see how you can judge their alleged similarity as there is nothing clearly-defined to compare the new station to! The "original" ITV2 was simply an unofficial placeholder term referring to the vague concept of a second commercial television channel. That could have taken many forms prior to the creation of Channel 4.
The bottom line is that we wouldn't even be discussing this if two otherwise different things didn't just happen to have been given the same name:-
(1) The vague *concept* of "a second commercial television channel or network in the UK". The unofficial shorthand/placeholder "ITV2" came from the existing *network* and the new station might or might not have had something to do with the existing ITV companies. Who knows? It wasn't a clearly-defined concept!
(2) An actual TV station formed in the late 90s that is run by the *company* that appropriated ITV as a brand. It's not the second commercial TV station in any sense, and it's not the realisation of the above concept either.
If the publicly-owned Channel 4 wasn't the de facto realisation of the UK's second commercial TV station or network (i.e. original usage of the term "ITV2"), then the blatantly-commercial Channel 5 certainly would have been.
It may be argued that the old ITV2 does or doesn't warrant its own article, but either way, it doesn't belong here beyond a *brief* mention to clarify things. The information either belongs in its own article, or split between the "history of ITV" article and the "Channel 4" article.
(BTW, even with your Radio 5 analogy, in *that* case there was an arguable connection- the new station was quite clearly the direct and immediate successor and replacement for the old and an argument *could* reasonably be had whether it was a new station or a relaunch of the existing one.
Ubcule (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we think there is enough material for an 'ITV2 (historical)' article to be justified? I managed to beef the 'Background' section up to around five paragraphs a year or two ago - which is substantially more than the stub article (here) mentioned above. 03:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fursday (talk • contribs)

To me, it is clear that the pre-1982 "ITV2" doesn't belong in this article, as it doesn't really have anything in common with the digital channel other than the name. It was simply one of several names used to refer to an unalloted slice of frequnecies. I remember being somewhat surprised when it was merged into this article. If anything, it should have been merged into Channel 4, as it dealt with the background for the creation of that channel.

One contributing factor that it got merged into this article was probably the name, "ITV2 rumour". Firstly, it suggested that the channel was merely a rumour, when it was a matter of serious political concern for about two decades. Secondly, it suggested that it was a forerunner to present-day ITV2, and not Channel 4. ITV2 was one of several designations for the possible fourth channel, others were "IBA2", "Fourth Service" or simply "the fourth channel", and there were even proposals to turn it into "BBC3".

I'd either recreate a separate article or merge this in to Channel 4. If we have a separate article, it is perhaps better to have a more generic title that doesn't use ITV2. Something like Fourth UK television service. That article would obviously present the different options considered and discuss the politics behind it. Väsk (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split as requested. It needs a lot of cleanup though to make an improvement on what we had. Op47 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITV2. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ITV2. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ITV2. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ 92.15.33.44 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ITV2&oldid=1220563333"