Talk:BBC/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Digital satellite ?

The article says the BBC is involved with "digital satellite". Is this really true? Aren't the new digital radio stations terrestrial DAB channels (broadcast from the existing terrestrial antennas)? Is there's some other satellite service? -- Finlay McWalter 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Are you referring to the introductory paragraphs? If so, I'd read it as meaning that they transmit their TV channels (BBC1/2/3/4/News 24/Parliament and the regional variations by satellite (Astra 2D). Arwel 09:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The digital radio stations are available on DAB and through digital TV (Sky, NTL, Telewest, Freeview). See Which BBC stations can I listen to? for the details. --rbrwr

BBC Parliament screen-size

On the Talk:BBC Parliament page someone has said that their analogue cable service BBC Parliament is broadcast full screen. I know for af act that it is broadcast full-screen on satellite. Is it broadcast quarter size on Freeview or digital cable? Mintguy (T) 10:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, BBC Parliament is broadcast quarter size on Freeview, with an interactive application displayed in the other three-quarters of the screen. I don't know about digital cable though. -Marknew 11:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I presume that this Freeview only, where bandwidth would be moreofan issue. Mintguy (T) 11:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Presumably, although the fact that the BBC can broadcast two full-screen channels with nothing but the BBCi logo on for most of the day, and yet can't show BBC Parliament in full screen is strange! - Marknew 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 701 and 702 channels are restricted to extra "interactive" content only, so a normal channel or programme cannot be shown on them. But it does seem a bit silly sometimes... Tom- 12:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline seems a bit all over the place to me at the moment, would it be better to do it like this? Can anyone think of a better way?

• 1922
  • The BBC was formed on 18 October and began broadcasting later that year on 14 November.
• 1927
  • The British Broadcasting Company becomes the British Broadcasting Corporation, when it is granted a Royal Charter.
• 1932
  • The BBC begins what will one day become the World Service when it introduces the BBC Empire Service. In 1938, the first foreign-language service (in Arabic) begins. By the beginning of the Second World War it is also broadcasting in French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.
• 1932
  • John Logie Baird begins experimental broadcasts in conjunction with the BBC and on 2 November 1936 the BBC opened the world's first regular high-definition television service from Alexandra Palace. The service is suspended during the Second World War but returns in 1946.
• 1953
  • The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II on 2 June in Westminster Abbey is broadcast by the BBC and watched live by an estimated audience of 20 million people in Britain.
• 1967
  • On 30 September the BBC launches BBC Radio 1 as a response to the threat from pirate radio stations broadcasts of popular music.
• 1983
  • On 17 January the BBC launched the UK's first breakfast television service: BBC Breakfast Time, ahead of the ITV franchise TV-am, which launched on 1 February.
• 1991
  • In October, the BBC launched the World Service Television (WSTV) news and information channel, which was renamed BBC World in January 1995. Unlike its World Service radio counterpart, WSTV was commercially funded, and carried advertising, which meant that it could not be broadcast in the UK. The Corporation's UK news service, called News 24, was not launched until November 1997.
• 1998
  • In August, the BBC's domestic TV channels became available on Sky Digital's satellite service. An unintended consequence of this was that people in the rest of Europe could now watch BBC1 and 2, using viewing cards from the UK, as the signal was encrypted for rights reasons. This even applied within the UK: people in England could not watch BBC channels from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or vice versa.
• 2000
  • On October 2, the first Edition of Breakfast was broadcast, the new morning programme on BBC ONE and BBC News 24 from 6 am to 9 am.
• 2001
  • On October 1, BBC LDN was launched, and Kent and Sussex got their own news programme, South East Today. Oxfordshire, once part of the South East, was then part of South Today.

Tom- 13:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's much better; in fact, it's so much better that I've gone ahead and inserted it into the main page. I hope this is OK. Marknew 15:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've modified the layout to place dates first where present, and make the tense consistent in each entry. Looks better I think. Avaragado 16:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Logo, fair use?

Someone just removed the BBC logo (image) from this article. I'm pretty sure it is OK to use the image with proper attribution. Comments? - Bevo 22:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From [1]: "The BBC logo is the copyright of the British Broadcasting Corporation and may only be reproduced when authorised. BBC is a trademark of the British Broadcasting Corporation." - This makes it sound unlikely that Wikipedia can use the logo, but I'm not an expert on these matters. - Marknew 11:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the logo is easy fair use in an article about the corporation it is refering to. Likely simple fair dealing as well. See Wikipedia:Logos for more on this subject. Jamesday 13:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed "Usage restricted. Trademarks on this page belong to their owner. See Image use policy." from the logo caption. This remark is, at best, misleading. Wikipedia does not use the logo in any way that could infringe on trademarks. Even if it did, then ugly disclaimers like this would have to be added on every page everywhere. We should really, really do without. djmutex 15:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't like the way the timeline has come to dominate this article. It breaks the flow of the narrative. I think perhaps the timeline should be moved to a separate article. Mintguy (T) 04:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, along with "Recent Events" perhaps? - Marknew 11:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe have a basic timeline with the really big events and then an extended one on another page? -- Tom- 12:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Significant events should be included in the narative history format that already exists (and has IMO been butchered somewhat by the timeline format). I find a narritive more ecyclopaedic than just a list of dates and events. Mintguy (T)

Playing devil's advocate: what's the difference between a timeline and a narrative that just presents a timeline in prose? I agree the timeline dominates right now, but then again there's a lot of history to include! One advantage of a timeline over a narrative format for a historical section is that it better fits the "factoid" nature of the subject (and the tendency for people to add snippets of information without seeing the bigger picture of the article). Where a narrative is useful is in presenting context, answering the "why" and "how" rather than the "what" and "when". What prompted me to beef up the timeline was the observation that it included a bullet about a particular programme's relaunch (Breakfast), but didn't mention, for example, the launch of BBC2, or colour, or stereo, etc - all much more important historically. What to do? Well, moving the timeline to a separate article would help distinguish between what/when and why/how, but I suspect people will still add what/when paragraphs to the original article when Important Things Happen (like Hutton). Avaragado 14:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if the timeline was moved to a "Timeline of BBC history" article, and a smaller list of significant events created in this article? -- Marknew 16:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be better; we might end up with needless duplication, or events put in the "wrong" article. Perhaps it would be a good idea to try to define significant before any new article is created. Avaragado 21:17, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion of significant: major landmarks and launches of national or international services, first of their kind local/regional service, not first broadcasts of special events. Tom- 21:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I definitely think we should make a separate Timeline page. There are very many events that could be put in a timeline, and it would be better to not clog up this article. Mintguy (T) 17:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Move

I propose we move the page to BBC. They are just initials to most people, I suspect. As precedent - we have CBS, NBC at the abbreviated form, as well as NASA. (ABC is at American Broadcasting Company, but only because ABC really needs to be a disambiguation page). Morwen 10:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

I note that 2/3rd of the links to the page are via the redirect at BBC - meaning that a move would actually make there be less redirections than there are atm! Morwen 13:20, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I see that Google also clearly shows BBC to be dominant. Just 111k for "british broadcasting corporation", 162k for "british broadcasting" compared to 29 million for BBC. Jamesday

BBC Regions List

The edit at 20:51, 19 Jul 2004 (by IP 62.64.209.39) re-organised the list of BBC regions so that the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland regions were once again inserted into the same regions list as BBC South West, BBC East and BBC London, reverting a change that I had made on 8th July.

The edit comment posted by the contributor gave the following reason: "restore order of UK regions (they're just meant to go north to south) and are based around news, not anything else" (emphasis added by me). However, it is not the case that the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland "regions" are "based around news, not anything else", but effectively run their own BBC One and (to a lesser extent) BBC Two services; for example, there are often major schedule variations between BBC One Scotland and the main feed of BBC One.

I believe that it is unfair to place these major production centres in the same league as the smaller English regions, who (for 95% of the time) only organise broadcast scheduled news bulletins and current affairs programming at a set time every day. This was the reason why I made the edit at 12:57, 8 Jul 2004, which highlighted that "Scot, Wales, NI are more significant than the English regions (in schedule control, programming etc.)", believing that the changes that I made more ably reflected this situation. For this reason, I have once again separated the regions of "BBC England" (so to speak) and the "regions" of BBC Scotland, BBC Wales and BBC Northern Ireland. If anyone feels that my argument is flawed and wishes to change it back again, could they please, if possible, post their argument for doing so here first. Thank you. -- Marknew 19:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are considered "nations" rather than "regions" by the BBC. So you are quite right not to list them as regions. Bonalaw 17:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Respect for BBC

The sentence about BBC: "It is frequently heralded as the most widely respected broadcaster in the world." is an opinion not shared by millions and millions of people in the Muslim and Communist worlds. I as an Iranian for instance know that Iranians (70 million people) see BBC's role as very destructive especially in orchestrating the Islamic Revolution of 1978 in Iran. You can find very few people in the whole of the East who trust the news coming from the BBC. So I suggest either omit that sentence or add to it: 'Many other people do not share this opinion'. --Mani1 16:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No it is not.

• If I said "The BBBC is really great" - That is an opinion.
• If I said "the BBC is the most respected broadcaster in the world" - that is suggesting that it came top in some survey or something and we would have to back it up by giving the statistics.
• but by saying "It is frequently heralded as the most widely respected broadcaster in the world." - we are merely reporting the fact the the organization is frequently described as the most respected broadcaster in the world - and that is a fact.

Mintguy (T) 16:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I agree, I think it would be a good idea to add something to balance it. Otherwise, maybe we should use the results of a survey about how respected the BBC is instead.

Tim Ivorson 16:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• While I have no problem with BBC, seems POV to me, and if nothing else, non-falsifiable. Remove it, or at the least, tell us which leading community figures and institutions respect BBC as opposed to other networks. Also, what about the BBC do they respect? The organization? The broadcast signal? The on-air talent? The editing? The reporting? The camera work? BeakerK44 16:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current wording is the result of a very long debate. I would not like to re-ignite it. Please see Talk:British_Broadcasting_Corporation/Archive2 and Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation/Archive3 Mintguy (T) 17:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)