Talk:ITV News at Ten

News articles

I don't really see the point in the "News articles" section of this page. It is filled with news pages from bbc.co.uk which, in my opinion isn't needed. If people what to know more about the axing and reviving of the News at Ten, they can go to the BBC News website and do a search. Anyone agree with me?
GMc^talk 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree with you also i thinking about suggesting that News at ten could be split into the old news at ten & the new News at ten dose anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.65.180 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nina Hossain stil a presenter

everytime i look at this page i see that wen i hav changed Nina Hossain to former to current presenter as her last NAT Bullietn was two weeks ago someone keeps editing it out she is stll a newsreader on this bullietn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.148 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2015

The following is a closed 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: Not moved. Biblioworm 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

ITV News at Ten → News at Ten – this UK news programme was referred to for over 30 years simply as News at Ten and is commonly recognised by that name; Google web and image searches for "News at Ten" also bring up more results for this programme than that of other broadcasters (WP:COMMONNAME). In addition, the programme has recently reverted to News at Ten branding. LBM ^{talk to me} 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "News at Ten" is a descriptive name used by numerous broadcasters, see the dab page. Needs "ITV" to distinguish it from rival programs by BBC, Sky, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose "Ten" is a time, there are many news programs at 10 o'clock. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the only network to air the news at ten o'clock, and not the only one to call their ten o'clock the "News at Ten". Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Considering the BBC have aired their main evening news at 10pm for the last 15 years the proposed move isn't really helpful. Zarcadia (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. It is true other broadcasters use the "News at Ten" title but as the disambiguation page demonstrates, it is usually prefixed with the name of the broadcaster, while ITV's bulletin was exclusively referred to simply as News at Ten for more than 30 years. From WP:COMMONNAME: "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, COMMONNAME still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the "new" name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, a significant majority of sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the "old" name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per WP:COMMONNAME." Please see the newspaper sources that refer to ITV's bulletin in the present context simply as News at Ten, without a prefix of ITV:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11952144/Tom-Bradby-Everyone-thinks-BBC-News-is-too-powerful.html

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/itv-outlines-vision-for-news/5095498.article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33273440

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/25/tom-bradby-main-presenter-itv-news-at-ten

Zarcadia - yes, that is true, but the BBC's bulletin has been branded for most of those 15 years as the BBC Ten O'Clock News, and as you'll see above even the BBC refers to ITV's bulletin simply as News at Ten. Happy to side with general consensus, but as per WP:COMMONNAME I don't see anything particularly problematic about having this article named News at Ten (which, from a check of that article's move log, it was indeed until 2009 without any problem), but including a helpful disambiguation link at the top of the article to direct the reader to other 10pm bulletins. LBM ^{talk to me} 19:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that News at Ten is the WP:COMMONNAME but I'm not convinced it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term News at Ten. If you look at a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective other countries also have news programmes named as such and also News at Ten may not be WP:RECOGNIZABLE to foreign readers. Zarcadia (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• • You do know that COMMONNAME does not mean you can just occupy undisambiguated titles right? COMMONNAME still applies if you use a title like News at Ten (ITV) which is not the requested title, but is COMMONNAME compliant if the common name is "News at Ten" WP:NATURALDAB applies to the current title, which uses a less common name for purposes of dismbiguation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful insights. Although the lion's share of Google search results for the phrase "News at Ten" displays articles, webpages, books, images etc etc on ITV's programme, I do understand the programme is no longer the primary topic for the phrase. So while the consensus so far deems News at Ten an unsuitable title for this page, am I right to assume there is little wrong with moving this article to News at Ten (ITV), and retaining News at Ten purely as the disambiguation page? This appropriately covers WP:COMMONNAME (most sources, including all four referenced above, indicate ITV News at Ten is not the title most commonly used), but also takes into account the issues raised here about the primary topic, recognisability and distinguishing from other 10pm news programmes. (Should another move request be filed??) LBM ^{talk to me} 04:53, 6 December 2015 (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.

Requested move 10 January 2016

The following is a closed 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: not moved. Because News at Ten is ambiguous, there is a consensus that the natural disambiguation of the current title is preferable to the parenthetical disambiguation of the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

ITV News at Ten → News at Ten (ITV) – As per WP:COMMONNAME, this TV news bulletin was titled on-screen and referred to in publications as News at Ten from 1967 to 1999; despite amendments in on-screen branding in the early and late 2000s to ITV News at Ten, the bulletin was (and still continues to be) referred to in most publications and news articles as News at Ten, without the prefix of ITV, indicating the strength and notoriety of the brand. (In addition, the bulletin has recently reverted to using the standalone News at Ten branding in reporter sign-offs and presenter cues.) See the following list of publications and newspaper articles that refer to this article's subject only as News at Ten:

• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=onN_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisq937xp7KAhVJwBQKHbyRBI4Q6AEIHDAA#v=snippet&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E2h9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT206&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisq937xp7KAhVJwBQKHbyRBI4Q6AEILzAE#v=onepage&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_4W6yi-qz8MC&pg=PA123&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisq937xp7KAhVJwBQKHbyRBI4Q6AEITTAJ#v=snippet&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f8y5XflPEOsC&pg=PA192&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioh9Kux57KAhXIuhQKHTfOC3w4FBDoAQggMAE#v=onepage&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yWyYbBcCx8kC&pg=PA170&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwjeehxp7KAhVBuhQKHQQXCZE4HhDoAQgrMAM#v=snippet&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MmKb3lmjn-0C&pg=PA214&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwjeehxp7KAhVBuhQKHQQXCZE4HhDoAQgzMAQ#v=snippet&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_Z0l1UOkqLcC&pg=PA440&dq=%22news+at+ten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiksPRxZ7KAhVCPRQKHcAZATw4HhDoAQhAMAc#v=onepage&q=%22news%20at%20ten%22&f=false

• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/08/news-at-ten-battle-up-to-eleven-bbc-itv
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11952144/Tom-Bradby-Everyone-thinks-BBC-News-is-too-powerful.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/16/news-at-ten-tom-bradby-witnesses-death-greece
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/04/itv-bbc-news-at-ten-huw-edwards-tom-bradby
• http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/tv-radio/article4656628.ece
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/16/itv-news-bulletin-gets-more-viewers-than-bbc-for-paris-attacks-coverage
• http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/itv-outlines-vision-for-news/5095498.article
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33273440
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/25/tom-bradby-main-presenter-itv-news-at-ten

(A Google books search for "News at Ten" + "ITV" brought up around 3000 results compared to 900 for "ITV news at ten" - https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22news+at+ten%22+%2B+%22ITV%22&tbm=bks)

News at Ten can continue to remain a disambiguation page as discussed previously - there are several news bulletins titled News at Ten in numerous countries; having News at Ten as a page for the ITV programme would not be the most helpful move to global Wikipedia users. The move to News at Ten (ITV) takes into account the programme's commonly recognisable and familiar name to readers while clearly signifying to them that this is the News at Ten on ITV. LBM ^{talk to me} 06:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom 2601:541:4204:7760:852F:E12C:DD63:779 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Article titles#Disambiguation. First in the list of article titling criteria is "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Third is "Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." Clearly natural disambiguation is to be preferred. Opera hat (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are two competing shows called News at Ten in the UK. One is the BBC's and the other is ITV's accordingly they are popularly referred to as the ITV News at Ten and the BBC News at Ten. Alexander's Hood (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of online sources - some of which are listed above - refer to ITV's programme as News at Ten rather than ITV News at Ten. I can accept the logic of natural disambiguation but I have yet to see the same amount of newspaper articles and websites referring to the BBC's programme only as News at Ten without the addition of 'BBC'. A Google image search for the "News at Ten" phrase brings up more images for... guess what... ITV's programme rather than the BBC's - within the first 30 results, only 4 are for the BBC programme (which, I would argue, is stylised on-screen as the BBC News [which airs] at Ten, as opposed to the News at Ten from the BBC). See - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22News+at+Ten%22&biw=1440&bih=760&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVifP9zrHKAhUHtRQKHWccDxIQ_AUICCgD - LBM ^{talk to me} 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Even ITV's website has examples where the show is referred to as ITV News at Ten, for instance: "One lucky finalist will be presented with an Apple iPad Mini 2 and be given the opportunity to spend the day with the team producing ITV News at Ten.". Alexander's Hood (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also from ITV's website is press release with the term 'News at Ten' used 10 times out of 12 in reference to the bulletin. One of the sources above is a BBC News article that refers to ITV's bulletin only as 'News at Ten'. ;)

As I said before - if natural disambiguation is the argument against moving this article, then that is fully understandable and acceptable - but arguing in favour of a minority of sources simply isn't a solid enough reason for not moving - the vast majority of internet search results for 'News at Ten' direct towards the ITV version. As a result it's highly questionable to say that this programme is "popularly referred to" as ITV News at Ten. LBM ^{talk to me} 02:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move per the natural disambiguation argument. If there was no other article named "News at Ten" then there might be an argument to move to the title, as the most commonly used name to refer to this programme. But: clearly that's not the case, and there is some need for disambiguation (per the last move discussion). In that case, surely the natural disambiguation choice of what is the show's official name is far more elegant than adding a parenthetical (ITV) to the end. That view is also reflected in WP:Article titles#Disambiguation, as noted by Opera hat above. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:16, 22 January 2016 (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 modified 3 external links on ITV News at Ten. 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/20131019042851/http://corporate.itn.co.uk/press.php?parent_id=13&content_id=1389 to http://corporate.itn.co.uk/press.php?parent_id=13&content_id=1389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160520/http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/newsdesk/ten.php to http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/newsdesk/ten.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118065701/http://www.itv.com/news/ten/ to http://www.itv.com/news/ten

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) 13:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ITC?

Article makes several references to "the ITC" but doesn't explain what it is? 147.147.123.78 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

SNP Leadet

You report Kate Forbes views on same sex marriage and GRR. What about questioning how Muslim Hamza Yousuf can support these? 109.149.247.114 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)