Template talk:ITV

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Media This template is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

having STV and ITV London linked is a lot simpler for readers than them having to go through the Scottish/Grampian and Carlton/LWT articles to get to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMA (talk • contribs)

That's not really the point. It is meant to be a list of the ITV franchise holders and there's no such franchise as north and central Scotland and London seven days a week. I'm not really sure if the STV (and it is 'STV' in capitals, as per the rules of English grammar) or ITV London articles should even exist. - Green Tentacle 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GT on this one. Similarly, the "ITV Thames Valley" invention they're planning to do with bits of Meridian and, erm, Central? should not have a page nor be on this list. They're not franchises, just brand names. --Kiand 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the franchise names are never used anymore - de facto STV is a single franchise - ditto for London - on-air the splits are either invisible (London) or almost so (STV). The on-air reality should count. PMA 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the template lists franchises. Note that none of Meridian, Anglia, Central, etc have "ITV1" after them, and indeed neither does the (brand-name only) "ITV London" thats been added. --Kiand 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we were to go with on-air names, we would only have ITV1, STV (in captials!), UTV and possibly GMTV (though whether that name is even used on-air as a station (as opposed to a programme) any more is debatable). The template should list the franchise-holders (including the historical ones). All the franchise articles and the ITV and ITV1 articles detail the current on-air branding.

Kiand, the Thames Valley region is indeed being created for news purposes from bits of Merdian and most of the Central News South area (the other bits are going to Central News West). This is another inspired move for newsmaking in the Midlands, up there with the fact that Central News East is now broadcast from Birmingham — in the West Midlands. - Green Tentacle 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering why the broadcasting regulators are part of the template, it does give the impression that they are part of ITV to those readers who may not know about ITV and the broadcasting regulators. To avoid confusion, would it be better to remove the regulators? (or at least create a separate template for the regulators?) --tgheretford (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the a*** hole that keeps changing this template and making it huge? GMc^talk 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you and 86.131.192.170 who both keep adding/reverting please talk about any changes here on this talk page. By rights you both should be blocked from editing for violating the three revert rule. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am getting bored with this edit war, I have decided to place the two templates in question here for people to comment and make suggestions on, rather than edit warring:

• Template before editing
• Template by 86.131.192.170

Any more revert/additions and I will start warning users and requesting administrator intervention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --tgheretford (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I widened the template by 25 pixels, as the previous width (595) was causing at least two of the lines to wrap a single word onto the following lines (which is why arbitrary use of line-breaks in templates should probably be avoided). Pixel-based widths are also probably a bad idea, as in general they do not degrade gracefully (when faced with a viewport that isn't wide enough, Bad Things™ can happen), but that's a problem for another day. 81.104.170.167 19:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks clunky and incorrect. ITV London is also a "non-franchise" region if you wish to include them - or otherwise leave them as "ITV Regions". Marbles333 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct - Thames Valley isn't a franchise. And I think we'll so the same for STV... NotMuchToSay 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we give the template a little makeover. Something like this:

ITV ITV

The sections at the bottom are pontless, containing 1 link each. Why not merge them into an "other"? Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Splitting this temp into three temps: ITV, ITV plc and ITV Franchises (Historical).

Because, for example, Friends Reunited is owned bt ITV plc, Not the ITV Network. Also, the file size.

Template ITV plc is a place for the PLC-owned-franchises, ITV digital channels and websites while ITV Franchises (Historical) contains the links to the historical franchise holders.

--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 08:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold, and add this to the template. If anyone has a problem, then feel free to reply and revert. Thanks, Malpass93 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off I strongly disagree that making it yellow is lurid and unnecessary, as its one of ITV corporate colours If you not happy about:

• Cerulean blue #2A52BE

Nearly All the templates on wiki are look the same, why cant some not have the colour of company its linked to? Crazyseiko (talk)

Templates are generally in the standard blue to maintain a consistent look and feel across the project and to match with the rest of the article colour scheme. The most notable exceptions are universities and sports teams. In my view it is most appropriate for this template to stay in the standard colours. This template is not in any case for just the current ITV1 or even ITV plc, but for the whole of the ITV network, past and present, for which the bright yellow is not necessarily relevant (e.g. the current ITV3 logo colour is red, the ITV1 (as was) logo colour used to be blue).Rangoon11 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You should add the Templates of STV and of UTV, they're all the same agency anyway, they're all part of the same ITV Network. 95.236.181.137 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Template:STV gives Airport information at the Search (for) Travel website, and there is no Template:UTV although it redirects to Template:Wireless Group
Direct links to STV and UTV are already in the top line of this template - Arjayay (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]