Talk:ITV (TV network)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hit Rock Bottom!

ITV have hit rock bottom with their programming. I don't even watch ITV anymore. Why do they use such AWFUL music during links? (ITV Logo + Music + some stupid scene). One piece of music goes "EEEOOORR EEEOOORRR" in a really high pitched singing voice .... sounds awful :-(

Can someone please put ITV out of its misery .....

You do hear more and more stories these days of how ITV is becoming unpopular. Maybe there should be something about this.--Santahul 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ITV consstantly re-runs the same stupid movies in approximately the same order:

1) About A Boy
2) Coming To America
3) American Pie
4) American Pie 2
5) American Pie 3
6) Police Academy
7) Police Academy 2
8) Police Academy 3
9) Police Academy 4

Turn your TV on on any given evening and its bound to be one of these films re-run over and over and over and over and over and over year after year after year after year after year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.7.78 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ITV Regional Companies Official Name changes

On 29 December 2006, the following ITV companies officially changed their names:

• Meridian Broadcasting Limited became ITV Meridian Ltd
• Central Independent Television became ITV Central Ltd
• Border Television became ITV Border Ltd
• HTV Group became ITV Wales and West Ltd

See http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk and search under "ITV" - URL linking is not supported. So that signalled the death knell for HTV then. Marbles 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that 29th Dec was only last Friday (and Companies House can be slow at these things), it will be interesting (and worth keeping an eye out) to see if the other ITV companies change. It also might be sensible to move articles to their new name and start articles as:

'''ITV <region name>''' (formerly known as '''<name>''').

Pit-yacker 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Digging a bit more there are a few more subtle changes:

• Anglia Television changed its name to ITV Broadcasting Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Broadcasting Ltd changed its name to Anglia Television (Nature of business not stated).
• Carlton Television changed its name to ITV Consumer Ltd. At the same time a separate company called ITV Consumer Ltd changed its name to Carlton Television (Nature of business: Non-trading company)

Pit-yacker 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Change

AFAICT the column I changed was the name of the "Franchise Holder". Surely if the company that holds the franchise changes its name that name is the new name of the franchise holder? Whether this tallies with the name that Ofcom currently display on their website (perhaps better entitled "Official Franchise Name") is surely irrelevant? Pit-yacker 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a good idea because in addition, Scottish Television Ltd has now re-named as STV Central Ltd, and Grampian Television Ltd has re-named as STV North Ltd, so where does that show the true company that was licenced to broadcast that franchise? Plus at the time (1993), they (the companies as they were) were to companies who signed the contract, not its re-named title. For example who actually knows HTV Group Ltd as ITV Wales and West Ltd, and the franchise certainly isn't in the name of ITV Wales and West Ltd. Just a thought anyway. Marbles 19:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent Television and Channel 3

Two points here really. First off, have we reached a consensus on whether or not to Merge Channel 3 into here (with appropriate explanation and redirect)? I strongly support this merger, because I think that there can be no reasonable or accurate dispute of the fact that the two do refer to the same thing, however ITV is a much older and more established name for the network. Either we call this article one or the other, not have two articles.

Which brings me on to my second point: Should this article actually be called Independent Television rather than ITV? General Wikipedia trends for abbreviations edge on the side of spelling them out in full (see WP:NCA) and the added advantages of Independent Television for the name of the article would be that it would further the distinction between ITV Plc and ITV proper, and reflect the fact that for many years after its establishment, Independent Television was generally used over the abbreviated form, which didn't really come into common parlance until, what, the late 1960s, early '70s? Further more, it would make far more obvious the associations with Independent Television News, the Independent Television and Independent Broadcasting Authorities, and the Independent Television Commission.

Thoughts? -- Fursday 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always considered "real" ITV to be known as ITV Network with the Carlton/Granada company known as ITV plc, however I think perhaps the name "ITV" is more well known for its purpose over "ITV Network", which is rarely used these days. Before merging Channel 3 (UK), make sure all the required legal information that's on that page moves over to the ITV page, perhaps under the "organisation" section. /Marbles 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ITV Network is one of the many names, but I wouldn't call it definitive. The term didn't really exist in ITV's formative years when independent television was used, referring to the type of television of which both the network and the constituting broadcasters were described as being. Also wasn't the ITV Network some sort of organisation that existed in the 80s and 90s prior to the mass take-overs, where commissions would be handled on behalf of all companies as a group, and other group activities such as network trailer commissioning took place? There was certainly an 'ITV Network Centre' which implies to me that the ITV Network was something specific rather than a generic term for ITV itself. I don't really know that much about this particular subject, but it is something that perhaps ought to be covered by those more expert than myself? In short, the fact that the various terms used to describe ITV can mean various different things and have differing contexts relating to them make this whole process all the more difficult.

Anyway, I'll process the merge now. -- Fursday 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Future section

This article contains speculations about the launch of a movie channel and some paragraphs on minor recent events about ITV Play and websites. Considering this isn't really about the ITV network, that it is definitely less notable than the likes of Thames, Rediffuison etcetera which are never mentioned in the article and that gives recent events unproportionally much space, I think these sections should be moved to ITV plc or History of ITV. Väsk 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It all needs referencing as per WP:V and WP:RS before (and if) it gets moved anywhere. At the moment, without verification, it fails WP:NOT#CBALL. --tgheretford (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglia Television Ltd

To clarify, the company ANGLIA TELEVISION LIMITED does indeed exist.

Prior to December 2006, there was a company named ITV BROADCASTING LTD and of course ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD. On 29 December 2006, the company ITV BROADCASTING LTD changed its name to ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD, and at the same time, ANGLIA TELEVISION LTD became ITV BROADCASTING LTD.

In effect, a simple swap. You can find both entries on the CompaniesHouse website. The licence holder remains as Anglia Television Ltd for the forseeable future.

/Marbles 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Does ITV have an official logo? The logo used at the top of this page is clearly the ITV plc logo, but can this be considered the logo of ITV as a whole (the subject of this article) or not? -- Fursday 03:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fursday here. This is the ITV plc logo, but I do not know if the overall ITV does have a logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabetagamma123 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The logo is the de facto logo of the ITV network as well as being that of ITV plc. ITV has had a number of network logos over the years which have been used to a greater or lesser extent by various ITV regions; the current one is no different and appears on ITV News, ITV Weather and ITV Sport programmes that are carried by STV and UTV - and the logo is used generally by Channel TV. Similarly I believe the individual regional companies hold the licence for ITV2 in their regions - so although they used to broadcast as S2 and UTV2, they now both broadcast as ITV2, using the ITV logo. DrFrench (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objections to renaming this article Independent Television? For a start it adds a nice level of differentiation between this article and ITV plc and it is, after all, it's full name. -- Fursday 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it brands itself ITV and its common name is most definatly ITV. The plc bit adds enough differentiation, at least for me. Narson (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do let's use common names; this would be doubly embarassing if there is another Independent Television somewhere. (I see there was one not long ago.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The common name is ITV, so oppose the proposed rename. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose too, we need to stick to common usage and it is known as ITV, both by the public and by itself, eg itv.com. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't itv.com ITV plc's website, not ITV's? Already you see where the confusion lies? -- Fursday 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose independant television has no relation to ITV, which is a network of affiliates (which is a normal network in the US) 70.51.8.129 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No relation other than being what the initials 'ITV' stand for... Whilst similar there are notable differences between the UK ITV (Channel 3) and the US affiliate system. -- Fursday 11:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that ITV isn't indepedent television, it is a TV network, and therefore not independent. The only thing independent about ITV is that it is not the BBC. 70.51.8.129 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't alter the fact that ITV stands for Independent Television. That's what the initials mean. -- Fursday 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The initials may have come from that phrase, but the brand is the initials, not the phrase, which has other uses that directly oppose the brand. This move would increase confusion, not decrease it. htom (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Having looked further, they appear to be embarking on a renaming program, and "Independant Television" seems to be neither in their old set of names nor in the new set. Let it stay ITV, please, leaving the phrase to indicate what it says -- television that's not programmed by a network. htom (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Common usage is ITV, as this discussion makes clear; see WP:MOSTRADE and WP:Official name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ITV vs Independent Television vs independent television

One of the confusing things to USAians is that the UK seems to have two TV networks, one called the BBC (perhaps with a number following it, BBC4), and one called ITV (again, perhaps with a number, ITV3.) Our (USAian) networks are called ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and a handful of others that come and go. None of them have any channel numbers assigned to them. The three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) provide roughly twenty hours of daytime and thirty hours of evening programming per week, which their affiliates (in general) must carry; the content is dictated by the network management. "Independent television" to us (USAians) is a station that doesn't have such a network affiliation and programs itself. It looks to me (having learned a tiny bit about UK broadcasting today) that the BBC and ITV are what we (USAians) would consider to be "major networks", or maybe "networks of major networks", in that they each seem to program several major networks for the UK. If this understanding is correct, perhaps the article could somehow make note of this different perspective for readers of different backgrounds. Thanks, htom (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a response to this question at User_talk:OtterSmith, as it is a bit off topic for here -- Fursday 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it's even more confusing than I thought it was! htom (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ITV companies - proposal

I tabled an idea relating to the ITV companies articles a few weeks ago on Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_TV_channels but nobody seems to have picked up on it, so I thought I'd draw attention here:

(link to talk page)

-- Fursday 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Future" and "The Future" sections

Any reason why there are two similar titled sections in the article? Thanks. 210.49.129.188 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please update

The merger of many news regions has now taken place, yet the article still covers it as a proposal. There's also nothing about the very strong public objections to this in some regions (Border, for one). 86.132.142.153 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

friends reunited

ion of itv's purchase of the friends reunited website for £120m, plus £50m in bonuses; they are now trying to sell it, hopefully for £50m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.122.105 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's called ITV1

I don't want to go over old ground, but the whole channel (all regions) is called ITV1.

ITV (the channel, not the organisation) was renamed ITV1 in 2001[1]. The decision was taken by ITV Network Ltd, which is made up of all the ITV franchise holders. At the time, all the franchises used their franchise names on air, so it made little difference.

A whole year later, the Carlton and Granada-owned franchises began using the ITV1 name on air, in place of the franchise names.

Two years down the line, Carlton and Granada merged, becoming ITV plc.

I've proved this is the case several times over (see Talk:Freeview/Archive 1, but always come up against the following arguments, by people who refuse to accept that ITV was renamed ITV1:

• The brand is only used on the ITV plc-owned franchises
  • True, but the other franchises use their own names, not 'ITV' - the whole channel is still called ITV1

• The decision to rename the channel was taken by ITV plc
  • They didn't exist for another three years - the decision was taken by ITV Network Ltd, a consortium of all the franchise-holders

• The other franchises didn't take up the name
  • A non-argument; no-one used it straight away (it was another year) and if the other franchises choose to continue using their franchise names, that's their decision - it does not affect the name of the whole channel

• The non-ITV franchises never use the name when referring the whole channel
  • Yes, they do: Channel took on the name and STV frequently use it when referring to the national channel[2][3]

Point proven.

I have never been provided with any evidence that the whole channel is still called 'ITV'. Most arguments I get back are that the non-ITV plc regions don't use the name ITV1 on air, which is a different matter entirely.

So, why is this article still insisting that ITV was never renamed ITV1? - Green Tentacle (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument would make a lot more sense if this argument was called 'Channel 3' but we've been down that road before... The point is this article exists, alongside ITV1 for the same reason that there are BBC and BBC1 articles. This article refers to the network of Channel 3 franchisees who also own half a multiplex that contains ITV2 etc. -- Fursday 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support this article being akin to BBC and BBC One (one for the owner, one for the channel). However, a lot of this article still refers to ITV as a channel. Things have got better recently, though. Nevertheless, the denial of the whole channel being renamed ITV1 does remain. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

If anywhere, it needs to be merged into ITV Plc or ITV1. -- Fursday 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regional variations

Shouldn't the current number of regional variations be mentioned? I count

• 14 ITV plc owned regions (the 10 georgraphic regions, with Central, Westcountry and Meridian split into subregions), as seen at itv.com/local
• 2 STV regions
• Channel and UTV
• Makes 18 regions in total
• 24 advertising regions according to http://www.thinkbox.tv/server/show/nav.916

How does this tally with the 9 regions mentioned in the map caption?

Walt111 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscounted ITV plc regions. There are 13, making 17 in total; 24 advertising regions; and 13 regions of Teletext (going from the regional news on Teletext's website)

Walt111 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What?

How is it possible to be "public service" and commercial? I've always thought those to be mutually exclusive, as a commercial station or network serves its advertisers. Public service broadcasters are funded by licence fees! --213.130.252.119 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

'Public service' refers to the nature of the service, not how it is funded. To put it simplistically, a purely commercial broadcaster exists to maximise revenue for its owners/shareholders, a public service broadcaster exists provide programming for the benefit of society, and if it sells advertising, this is just a means to generate revenue in order to achieve this. Having a commercial agenda is not the same as being commercially funded - Channel 4 is an entirely public service broadcaster funded through advertising and S4C part funded through advertising. When ITV began, it operated on both models, with regional contractors taking franchises in order to make money for their shareholders and the Independent Television Authority and later the Independent Broadcasting Authority existing to strongly regulate the network by requiring the contractors also produced content of a public service nature, meaning the ITV network existed as an unusual hybrid. These requirements have been enormously relaxed since the 1990s. -- Fursday 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Head of ITV

In the article on BBC, there is a box stating that Mark Thompson is currently Head of BBC. Perhaps this article would be improved if the name of the head of ITV went in the box. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This website, the website of the Daily Mail: [4] says that the head of ITV was Stuart Prebble, but says that he has just resigned. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I'd like to draw your attention to my proposal for splitting the above article. If you're interested, please read (and reply) at the ITV2 talk page:-

Talk:ITV2 proposed split

Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change

Just so that this can be decided ahead of any changes, it would appear the soon ITV1 is to be rebranded back to ITV, according to this article from Broadcast Now. If this comes to nothing, then the current arrangement will remain, but if this does occur, will the articles be merged or one renamed e.g. ITV (channel) / ITV (network). Any ideas on how to deal with this? Rafmarham (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question. If the articles are correctly named at present, a name change shouldn't effect anything though there would be the question of which article retains the "ITV" name - probably this article, with the other being labelled "ITV (brand)"

Of course, some editors will variously argue that the status quo isn't ideal; in the past it has been argued that the articles be merged anyway whilst others have been in favour of the separation but preferred another title such as "Independent Television" or "Channel 3" - the legal term for the ITV Network.

Perhaps we should cement the present consensus first, and then use that to tackle any naming conventions post-rebrand? -- Fursday 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I do support a move/simplification to avoid complication. I personally think ITV Network would probably cause the least confusion. Mark999 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Actually ITV (TV Network) like STV (TV Network). Mark999 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure on Channel 3 and Independent Television because it breaks WP:COMMONNAME, nobody refers to them like that and it is just a legal name. I belieed the current consensus was that ITV represented the entire network, including ITV plc's ITV1 service as well as UTV and STV. ITV1 represented ITV plc's service as some aspects are different elsewhere in the country. I don't believe merging the two would work for the reasons stated above, ITV plc's service does not represent the entire country. Rafmarham (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined to state on ITV 1 that it is a former brand-name for the ITV franchisees owned by ITV plc. ITV plc should stay as it is. This article should be the article that represents the association and Channel 3 network as it does at present.

I'm not sure where ITV plc's use of the name fits in with all this. All the other names thus far suggested have problems, technically ITV1 is a network rather than a channel (BBC 1 is a network as well) so the distinction between channel and network isn't really correct. ITV (brand) is confusing as it isn't clear what it refers to. That is the brand and the network are synonymous. It just so happens that ITV plc have adopted that brand. so does the ITV brand apply to the whole network (I would argue this), the name used by some franchisees, ITV plc, or something else. Channel 3 and Independent Television are ok as redirects. However, they shouldn't be the primary article location, as no one in the real world uses these terms - especially the latter which is a little archaic.

I guess the part of the solution might be answered by answering the question "Just how much is there to say about ITV plcs use of ITV for their bits of the network? Pit-yacker (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The point about Common Name is reasonable actually. However there is a broader issue which in my opinion has yet to be resolved in a satisfactory way - that is the naming of the ITV plc franchise articles. There has been a move (albeit slightly inconsistent) to rename these articles into an "ITV" branded form - c.f. ITV Wales & West. The issue I have with this is that most of the material in these articles concerns the (long) period in which most of them were independent companies, and that they are presently no longer individual operations. One option might be that these articles should be formed in the past tense with the modern day regional aspects of ITV Plc as subsections of what is currently ITV1. I think it's worth tackling this issue at the same time as thinking about naming here. -- Fursday 22:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but those companies do technically still run the license, it;s just they've been amalgamated and I don't see any reason to split it off. Plus it provides a nice contrast between the ITV of pre mergers and the ITV of today. How about ITV (service) as a new name for ITV1, maybe with the addition to ITV (ITV plc service). That was it adheres to common name (ITV) while being specific from the whole network. I think that ITV should if possible remain as representing the whole network. Rafmarham (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion ITV1 becomes ITV (TV channel), ITV become ITV Network. I think we still need the ITV plc article. Mark999 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So the consensus seems to be that if ITV1 becomes ITV then the ITV1 article will be renamed ITV (TV channel) (I know about it not being a channel technically but a network but in the minds of the common population ITV1 is a single channel), ITV plc will retain it's name, ITV will become ITV (TV network) while the page ITV becomes a disambiguation page. Rafmarham (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this should happen, when the rebrand happens unless another idea of how the articles can be rearranged and/or renamed happens in time for the rebrand. Mark999 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that ITV1 will be renamed as ITV shortly. Rafmarham (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 Edits

As per some requests on the to-do list, I have copy edited the page to tidy it up, added a significant history section, differentiated between ITV plc and ITV throughout and brought up to date where I could. I removed the 1998 ITV logo as it was serving no constructive purpose and had no link to the article. Rafmarham (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename update

I have renamed the article now in order to give time for all links to be fixed ready for the rebrand which will happen in January. Mark999 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If after this ITV1 gets moved to ITV (TV Channel) then once all the links are sorted any arguments over the name/articles content can then be sorted. Mark999 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm impressed. A plan worked out before hand and all niggles removed. Editor collaboration at it's best! Rafmarham (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes executed perfectly. Well done all! Rafmarham (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a primary topic?

After the move to ITV (TV network) last week, ITV presently redirects here. Is the primary topic the network or the channel? Or otherwise just make the disambiguation page ITV and drop the brackets from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreal7 (talk • contribs)

The ITV that is the subject of the ITV (TV channel) page is a branded service that forms part of this network. I thinks its right that this is the landing page. Besides, it does clearly state in the opening paragraph that it shouldnt be confused with ITV in England and Wales and ITV plc. Rafmarham (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the majority of links might come from television programme articles, and some users will have the tendency to just type in [[ITV]], which would redirect here and would be the correct article to link to, although not every link will be correct. So I'm fine with it currently redirecting here. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 Edits

I have just been through and added a large number of new references from news sources to the history and operations sections. We have now reached the point where it is difficult to give references to the other sections. As a result, I've removed the refimprove tag and the to-do box at the top of this page. I also removed the information on the 2013 rebranding, it only applied to the ITV plc service and was fairly minor, and the old ITV logo as it served no purpose. Both of these were already in the History of ITV article. Rafmarham (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Following these launches, the ITA awarded more franchises until the whole country was covered by a regional station, totaling fourteen"

Surely this should be eighteen?

In addition to the fifteen nominally in existance today, there was also North West Wales and the weekend franchises for the Midlands and the North. -- Fursday 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This does seem unclear. If you look at the table towards the top of the History of ITV article, there's 17 initial franchises listed. If you count the companies making up those franchises there's 15, if you count just the regions there's 14. I think this sentence needs rewriting slightly as to me it sounds like it's saying there was fourteen franchises not regions. The table doesn't list North West Wales as a separate region at that stage in ITV's history however. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well which figure is the most useful in the context of the article? Probably the number of regions, I'd have thought.

I was confused about the 18, as of course this pre-dates the separate Yorkshire region so 17 is indeed quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fursday (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Logos Prior to 1989

We also need the ITV logos that were used before 1989. --123.2.142.50 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Logos

The Logos section is missing the ITV logos prior to 1989. Can anyone upload those logos? --123.2.142.50 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, keep your hair on, I've managed to put the name back in the lead. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Any update on this due to the logo being used is for itv plc not the ITV Network 1701Will (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not just say what ITV STANDS FOR !!!???

One could guess that since ITA means INDEPENDANT TELEVISION AUTHORITY (IIRC) then ITV means Independent TV, but why not just say so if this is what it means?BrianAlex (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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: no move, and move ITV (disambiguation) to ITV. -- tariqabjotu 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• unnecessary dab. Alternately, move itv (disambiguation) to itv —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• This seems to have been a partially completed move to prepare for the channel's rebranding to "ITV". This should be discussed on the article talkpage first. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• ITV (disambiguation) shows that the initials ITV have many other uses. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support the move, because having 'network' in the name seems confusing for it being a TV channel. --Chacha15 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Erm this article is about the network of 15 regional stations not the channel that is a shared identity for 12 of them. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and redirect ITV to ITV (disambiguation). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No support demonstrated per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ITV (disambiguation) should be moved to ITV. ENeville (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on ITV (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025094921/http://www.c21media.net:80/news/detail.asp? to http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309033000/http://www.business7.co.uk:80/business-news/scottish-business-news/2012/03/05/stv-agrees-new-channel-3-licensing-deal-with-itv-106408-23775954/ to http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/scottish-business-news/2012/03/05/stv-agrees-new-channel-3-licensing-deal-with-itv-106408-23775954/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121017201105/http://www.bfbs.com/tv/node/823536 to http://www.bfbs.com/tv/node/823536

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

'vulgar' nature of US commercial networks (?)

The premise of the ITAs existence, To prevent any commercial network reverting to the 'vulgar' nature of US commercial networks at the time seems to explicitly quote some source, but no citation for this seems to exist. Searching through the Hansard for relevant dicussions of the Television Act of 1954 doesn't seem to mention this. This unverified claim may need to be removed. Derick1259 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Derick1259

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITV (TV network). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731185332/http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/updates/200811 to http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/updates/200811

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) 13:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)