Talk:Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme)

Runtime

If it broadcast from 7am to 9am, then the runtime should read 120 minutes, not 205 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Split?

Although in the very early stages at the moment, would it be best to keep the original TV-am format in one article and the new revived article in a new article? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 12:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since TV-am was an ITV franchise, and the new GMB is essentially a re-boot of the old one, I'm not sure this split was warranted without discussion/vote. At the very least, the new one should be prominently mentioned in the old one's article or lede (not just the hatnote), and vice versa. Softlavender (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Does the articles Good Morning Britain (1983) and Good Morning Britain (2014) need a hatnote?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:NAMB, we don't use hat notes when the title already disambiguate the pages. We don't add a hat note to Tree (set theory) indicating other kind of trees exist. According to Softlavender (talk · contribs) it is "a helpful hatnote that currently is the sole link between the two articles", the function of such hat notes is not that, that's the function of the page "Good Morning Britain (disambiguation)". The function of such notes is to disambiguate articles that arises confusion in its title, for example "Tree (set theory)", when Tree (descriptive set theory) also exists. According to Softlavender, just because Ego White Tray added the note "'This section is frequently disputed and should never be used as the sole reason to remove a hatnote" (because it has been in discussion), the note is clear: "as the sole reason". The real reason is that Good Morning Britain (disambiguation) and "(2014)/(1983)" are two reasons why the note is avoided, and should be excluded. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove, as Good Morning Britain (disambiguation) already removes the ambiguity and avoids the reader going in circles from article to article. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:NAMB: "This section is frequently disputed and should never be used as the sole reason to remove a hatnote."; WP:HATNOTE: "the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names"; and WP:SIMILAR. Right now the hatnote is the only mention connecting the two programmes, which in fact are essentially the same programme (the new one is a reboot of the old one, with the same name, on the same channel, and in the same general timeslot). Since the programmes are either the same or are so closely related, there needs to be prominent mention of each on the other's article, as mentioned in the discussion immediately above this RfC. Softlavender (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• How can 1983 and 2014 be similary titled? I open a RM to move this page to Good Morning Britain (TV-am TV programme), do we will need a hatnote because ITV is similarly spelt like TV-am? Also, should I request the deletion of Good Morning Britain (disambiguation), the hatnotes are doing its function. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also I already explained why the hatnote is excluded, not because of WP:NAMB, but because Good Morning Britain (disambiguation) exists. Under your argument, you should include the hatnotes to Titanic (1997 film) and Titanic (1953 film) or Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1936 film) and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2008 film) as well. How can a veteran like you forget about other articles. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Both articles are very short, and, as said above, a continuation of the same brand. Have you discussed merging them? You can always split them in, say, 2016 if the article becomes unmanageably long. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

They were merged until March 3, 2014, when This is Drew separated them into two articles. There wasn't any discussion beforehand, so I question(ed) whether the split should have been made -- at least whether it should have been made without discussion. I agree that moving them back together would possibly solve a fair number of problems, and follow the format of similar instances, like films that have gotten new titles, etc. Cf: Gone to Earth (film), etc. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Good Morning Britain (2014) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)