Wikipedia

Talk:Pop (British and Irish TV channel)/Archive 1

< Talk:Pop (British and Irish TV channel)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 86.183.179.67 in topic Logos
Archive 1

infobox

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am trying to collect information on Pop for an infobox. Let's pool our information:

  • a picture of Pop's logo=
  • launch of Pop=
  • audience share (with as of when and a source)=
  • former name(s) (if any)=
  • channel owner=
  • terrestrial/sattelite/cable channel positions=

I might be able to found out the audience share later. Thelb4 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Market share of 0.1%, owners are Chart Show Channels, Sky 619 and I doubt any cable carraige, no former names, launch would be after October 2002 (when CSTV itself started) but before December 2003 (the earliest I can remember it being there), and I can't find the logo anywhere. --Kiand 18:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Thelb4 19:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
What about voice actors for the 'Cheeky Monkeys'?--Epderdermic 22:52, 19 February 2007

Classic Pop?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this ture and has it been announced yet?

HMR 3:26 November 16, 2006 (UTC)

It will not happen because classic pop might be effected by boomerang's high ratings. A pop boy channel may happen? --81.155.114.66 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Classic Pop channel should be happening to replace Tiny pop +1 or Pop Girl +1 to show classic cartoons like Garfield and Super Mario. HMR 19:20, 26 Spetember 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

[== == Headline text ==]---- 

==

Fair use rationale for Image:Poplogo.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Poplogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Popuktvlogo.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Popuktvlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is pop coming to freeview?.

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Pop has launched on sky and virgin. It is free to air. Only cbbc and citv are on freeview which arn't 24 hours unless you rescan your freeview box. Should freeview viewers that are kids have TV til 9pm. Should pop be launching on freeview?. Is it true?. Is pop coming to freeview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.73.78 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, now PROOF OR GTHO! HMR 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is only possible for 2008. It may be going to tiscali TV, UPC ireland or to USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.73.78 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pop may come to freeview after the digital switchover. It could go to freeview before the switchover ends. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please put your awnsers on the section please? --86.149.155.187 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

pop wont be coming to freeview even after the switchover there other bigger channel bidding for licenses.it will probally come to freesat in fact freesat will probalyl take over freeview it got more capiocty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Count on it?. It may come to both freeview and freesat. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it wont come to freeview it has limit capicty and after switchover it wont have mcuh mroe there biggger chanenl with mroe ratings that will get ahead of pop, i love pop and lvoe to see it on freeview but sadly it wont it ratign are poor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think different. Think what you like. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a kids channel. It might be on freeview and other channels that are competing are not kids channels. (Execpt Kidsco which may come due to high ratings internationaly.) --86.149.155.187 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think pop may come to freeview but i need your opinions now. --Omegace (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think pop coming to freeview might be unlikely because of freesat and low audince share of 0.0% or 0.1% from BARB. --Omegace (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard something about Chart show tv planning to come to freeview or DTT but another company has brought the space out. Sky picnic would affect it too as disney channel and discovery has top up spaces that CSC could buy unless bskyb removes their channels and CSC could buy those spaces. --Omegace (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets say unannounced because it could be true or it could be unlikely but they could get spaces for the channel. It could be popular on freesat because of CBBC and CITV channels finish broadcating at 7pm and 6pm respectivly. --Omegace (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • why do you insisit it will come to freeview? chart show media are a very small company compared to lieks ot fbbc itv etc they cant afford to get a lciense on freeview but they are on freesat as of yesterday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's CSC Media Group not Chart show media. --Omegace (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Programming

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

I have been watching pop recently and they have been airing Satam and Aosth at the same slot along with super mario bros 3 and super mario world. Please don't put Satam on the former programmes if they air jointly. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

give me the time slot satam is suppose to air on, because i have checked it at least twice in the last 2 week recording all asoth episodes i aint seen one satam. i will keep reverting it until i can see solid proof then i wont revert, as all the lisitng saying asoth and all episode si have seen are asoth. please post the time slot you normal see satam and post if it is a weekend or weekday or everyday if it is wrong i will also contact the channel to get it fixed in there lisitngs to. sorry i am reverting it but just now i havent found any proof it is on--andrewcrawford 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When all 65 episodes of aosth is aired satam airs til satam's final episode, then aosth airs. It is a airing pattern. Satam doesn't air very often. It airs on the same time slot as aosth. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you dare Andrew Crawford --86.149.155.187 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

until i can verify it i will need to revert otherwise it is speculation, no source says it does, if oyu prvoide me a source i will then happily agree with you, is it airing just now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that or I'll think you are a kid.--86.149.155.187 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

think what you want but wikipedia rule stat a source has to eb provided or more than one person verify it if you tell me when it is on ill verify it and happily not revert your changes, but take this in to conserdation you have said your self the both aint on at once it either asoth or satam, so dnt have both on when they both aint on

Think what you like. I don't care anymore. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New opinions please?. --86.149.155.187 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Super mario bros 3 and super mario world are airing at the same slot as each other but pop says it's just super mario world. They are wrong. The EPG says it's super mario and don't show episode infomation but programme infomation because of the confusion. More awnsers. --81.155.114.66 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

i totally agree about mario i have verified it as has others, but sonic there no oen else veriied it yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that I put garfield on the coming soon section but I didn't put it there. I know it wouldn't be coming so stop it. --81.155.114.66 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

say what? garfield isnt comign and why you telling me not to put it here i jsut revert it like hmr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't put SATAM on the former programmes section because it is on rotation with AOSTH. I will revert your reverts til you provide a source that SATAM is not airing. --86.143.245.100 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The programming on pop are normally cartoons from north america sometimes japan. but the ones that were from japan are dubbed before like 4kids. Animes sometimes air on pop but dubbed. some dubbed animes are on anime central that are by 4kids. There might be a anime central slot on pop. This is only possible. Don't think it's true. --86.143.245.100 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

animecentral programming is entirely differnt to pop, pop is not getting aanime slot as such, they are jsut getting shows that are poplour and old, pop boy is meant to be for anime for boyus liek pop girl is mostly anime for girls, anime central is mostly about uncut anime shows that have never made it to the uk and fans cry out for, and form wha ti have heard not sure if it true they also air it in japanese with subs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pop boy has not launched yet but pop does air a couple of animes that had made it to uk tv screens. The animes that are airing on pop as of february 2008 are kirby, transformers and beyblade. All originally in japan. --86.166.78.237 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

if you read wha ti said, i said pop boy is MEANT to be for anime,transformers techincally isnt anime it has never been classed as such but headmaster etc are. and i know what airs on pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you said but you spell wrong so some people can't understand. Pop boy has not launched yet on any platform. Pop may air more dubbed animes in the future like pokemon and sonic x (estimated animes that may air on pop etc). Pop air shows that used to be popluar during thier original run. --86.166.78.237 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am Omegace. Iv'e started the programming and is pop coming to freeview section before I created my account --Omegace (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When pop plus was airing, pop had more toddler aimed programming in the morning and music in the afternoon, pop plus had music in the morning and more preteen aimed programming. That was in 2004 so don't worry and track all the programming of that time on the pop and pop plus article. --Omegace (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Only I repiled recently more awnsers and this is important to the article. --Omegace (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot has put pop boy related things on this article. Will that idiot just give us a source and tell another member to create the pop boy article to prove it and a source from CSC media group or ofcom. This is not a threat just a gentle warning. --Omegace (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Zorro genaration z is inaccurate and the person who made that edit must source it and NO SOURCE, SOURCE OR DIE, NO PROOF, PROOF OR DIE. So give us the source and proof and it must be from CSC Media Group. Not a forum or another wiki about CSC Media Group. --Omegace (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some guy who uses HMR as his username has put Zorro Genaration Z back as Zorro Genaration. HMR give us the source and proof or I will revert. NO SOURCE. SOURCE OR DIE. NO PROOF. PROOF OR DIE. --Omegace (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • HMR is a reliable person, they normaly revert invalid information if they have put it on they have the advanced listing that i dnt ill check my listings ot see

Some guy has been putting in beyblade v force and g revolution on the coming soon list some times and then it is reverted and it should be because there is no source unless there is a trailer on pop or source. --Omegace (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Dennis the Menace has disappeared off pop so I have put it on the former programmes section unless you have a source it is airing. --Omegace (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Animecentral has been airing childrens programming from the likes of Transformers headmasters to Gi Joe a real american hero. They might be cheap fillers for animecentral. I think Gi joe and shows of those likes may come to pop but there is no source so there is no point yet. I bet there might be animes coming to pop during this year. --Omegace (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

POP +1

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Omegace - i knwo you mean well but this time you are wrong, the source provide is very accurate it is in fact the peopel who provide the ratings for the channels they get informed about channesl changes so teh channesl can get new ratiings. i have check the site and it has confirmed it so dnt revert the information it is correct information comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)

I thought these are just rumors from a CSC forum but i can see the point you're getting to. What is Klix! anyway. --Omegace (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be false like the time ofcom mistakenly said flaunt will rebrand to flava ten said as b4 rebranding as flava. It might be Tiny pop +1 as a mistake. Has ofcom comfirmed it as well? --Omegace (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what Klix! is. --Omegace (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A pop boy styled channel and a animecentral for the younger audinces. I thought it was similar to pop girl. So pop boy may not be launching if Klix! launches unless CSC says pop boy is still launching.--Omegace (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • correct to be honest they have neevr said they where goign to launc h pop boy it has just been rumoured for a while, but if what my soruces tell me are true then klix will probally be what the rumoured pop boy was meant to be--andrewcrawford 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Pop +1 should've been replaced by another kids channel like Pop Boy or Toon TV, as POP! +1 replaces with Klix! HMR 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Toon TV is the original name of Animecentral and Pop boy is just a rumor. The rumoured pop boy might be Klix!. Tiny Pop +1 might get replaced by Pop +1 if CSC considers reiving Pop +1 or Klix! +1. --Omegace (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Toons Tv is not the original name for animecentral it was the name of the channel before pop, as for tiny pop+ 1 it is it gettign replace with anotehr channel, there dropping +1 because they dnt get eth audience share they like

Yes it is because when animecentral has got it's licince it was called Toon Tv before it changed to animecentral before launch. Thats Proof. --Omegace (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That was a transfer of a license animecentral never formed from toonstv, CSC had the license fromt eh old channel they could either droppe dit or rename it it, and those choose to rename it as the old channel that had closed months and motnhs prior to animecentral chanenl was jsut not preforming to expections

Hi everyone, the AGB Nielsen website had got the name of Klix! wrong, it will infact be called Kix!, confusing I know. I have saved you all the trouble by correcting all affected areas and sorry for causing conflict, but as Andrewcrawford said the AGB Nielsen website is quite a reliable source (usually....) Thanks alot, Skytvfreak

Pop girl+1 is launching according to AGB Nielsen so CSC will not be dropping +1 after all because of Flaunt+1 and Bliss+1 so pop+1 could be revived. --Omegace (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid CSC media group are dropping +1 channels like Bliss +1. They still got Tiny Pop +1 and Pop Girl +1 so they should be replacing with something else which would be non-timeshift channels. HMR 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Programming

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it might be time to break out the programming ot its own article--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyblade V-Force

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone provide a source that CSC is going to show Beyblade V-Force? Especially since Beyblade hasn't been on any CSC media channel for over a year now? If it is untrue, please remove it. 78.105.45.253 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

firstly the way csc media is something could be off air for 18 months then they put it back on there a weird ocmpany ie that, as for source you wont find any but the person who put it there correctly said ultimate muscle and batman of the future would come to kix so its possible just leave it with citaion requiered--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should we state that Virgin Media no longer airs POP? (and also explain WHY if anyone knows) MJN SEIFER (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

the artilce already states it no logner on virgin because they removed it and no one can explain it witha source although people that know virign know why beause they swaped it for more poplour csc media channel so they dnt need to sing another ocntract jsut now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Show lists

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

Apologies for leaving an unfinished edit summary [[1]], I don't know what happened but I meant to write -

One does not have to consult the parent project before making a policy-based edit, note WP:CONLIMITED

I sincerely hope that the parent project is not routinely ignoring policy, as claimed by User:Andrewcrawford [[2]]. Rubiscous (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

These show lists are a serious verifiability problem. There are long-running patterns of vandalism across TV articles (especially children's TV articles) where anonymous editors subtly add complete nonsense to these lists. (This article, Pop, and the other Chart Show Channels networks suffer from this particularly.) Perhaps a partial solution (as attempted over at KidsCo, which has been a particular target of the same particularly notorious and obsessed vandal) is to require a cited, verifiable reference for each list item? This at least makes it far easier to spot the most obvious vandalism, but of course also gives the lists themselves a bit more credibility. Bonusballs (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Until you have discussed it and given a links to prove that comunity consuess is theses hsould go as there wel over 1000 articles liek this your talkign about serious changess which need a ocnsuses regardless if it community or project, there are articles jsut relating to this on some channels and have been up for deletion but the overwhleming to keep, state al guidelines this is breeching and get a discussion goign before changing again or els ei will report oyu as your only using policies that suit you--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
A bit early to threaten to report me isn't it? What would you report me for? Making bold edits? The guidelines the list breaches are WP:V, as it is wholly unsourced and in my view unsourcable, conflicts with WP:NOTDIR, furthermore the act of a channel broadcasting a syndicated show is not in itself a significant event worth reporting. My reason for being extra bold with my edits is a practical concern regarding the constant vandalism these lists attract, in my experience and as supported by Bonusballs observations above. It is for this reason that Wikipedia requires verifiability. In a perfect world we could trust unsourced lists to be truthful, but this is an 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', requiring sources is vital to combat disruption. Could you please point me to any consensus that has ever been reached in discussion by the project on this issue because I can't seem to find it. Just because the lists exist on a lot of pages doesn't imply consensus if it has never been discussed. Rubiscous (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
i would report you for being bold more than once and repeating it, i have asked you to geta conesus first from teh project now fromt eh commmunity i dnt agree with major changes without seeng a conesus and yotu seem to agree if ther eno conesus to keep, but a few of teh artilces like list of prgorams broadcast on boomerang etc have went up for edeltetion adn there alway kept because of some reaosn i aitn 100% myself qwhat but it has been dscussed in some form of way. if you feel these shuld go please brign it up at the parent project and geta conesus tha tthey should and ill be happy, but i agree on teh vandelism it a pain in teh butt but that what p[age proctetion is for--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree on reflection I should have been 1 revert quicker to move to the talk page, hardly a reason to threaten to report someone AFTER discussion has commenced. The pattern of the vandalising behaviour is not persistent to any single page. You say that there are over 1000 articles like this one, are we to protect them all? Rubiscous (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Majority of the aricles are not gettign vadnlise liek this one, but vandelism is not a reason to remove and if required proctecting them all that something for a mod o decide or the community. How abut you starta discussion on wikipedia project television or britihs tv channels and psot the link here adn we can try geta consesus?, i had aalready said a conesus on this was made but you reverted so in my opinion you where ingoring the conesus you hsould have starteda talk here after i reverted and not made changesd again until discussed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism is not a reason to remove sourced content but it can be a reason to enforce a more stringent interpretation of the requirement for verifiability. You asked me to bring it up with the parent project, which I wasn't required to do in order to make a bold edit, then with your second revert you implied that a consensus had to be obtained before bold edits, not true, nowhere did you tell me there was already an established consensus, let alone point me towards it. Rubiscous (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
A conesus was reach on 3 or 4 AFD's of articles that isntead fo havinga show list in them are a compelte article onte4 the show list and there liek this one but bigger, i was more implying if you think this isnt ight go to the parent prject and starta new discussion and get a newconesus beore makign this sort of change, if this was one fo a few articles liek this i would be in teh wrong for insisting you to go to the project it is only becaus ei knwo this has been borught up befor ei said go there, i aint goign to traw thorugh history to find it nor do i expect you to but startinsg new thread doesnt harm--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't think threatening to report people who disagree with you is helpful. Can we discuss this reasonably? I have to say, I don't think that "thousands of other articles are like this" is a good reason to justify any individual article breaking policy. You can't just say "Oh, well we can't fix the unsourced content in this article, because thousands of articles have unsourced content". Perhaps there is middle ground that can satisfy both requirements here. Andrew, you don't want the lists removed from the articles. Rubiscous, you don't want lists of unsourced content in articles. Is the solution here, therefore, just to work towards ensuring that these lists are adequately sourced? Perhaps as an interim measure we tag the lists to indicate that they need citations, unsourced material may be challenged or removed, etc. Everyone works to source the material so listed. Anything unsourced after a certain period of time is removed without mercy. Could this be a good compromise? Bonusballs (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldnt be reporting for disagreement i have not objection that is what wikipedia is to agree, but to make such bold move more than once wihtout a consesuis of any form and to then teo repat it is vilotion itself bcause youurasically stating your doign it regardless, if there conesus that fine but i dnt see any discussion to state there a proejct or community conseus, to be hones tim not boher if there removed but i jsut want ot see a unified conesus somewhere to state this is fine, man y of the list like lsit of show broadcast on boomerang carrotn network etc have went up for deletion beofre and have always been kept i aint sure the exact reasosn but i thik because of otehr reasons but we need to dig out the deletion request so tbe sure,. im happy for a medium ground tag them as uncitied doesnt bother me i dnt agree with very bold major changes without discussion--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on my reading of the Wikipedia policies (your mileage may vary), removing unsourced material doesn't require concensus, especially not when the reasons for the removal are stated in the edit summary. (Different matter if a whole section goes missing without explanation, but that is not what happened here.) However, WP:LIST states that when challenged material is restored, "it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material." It's a shame there isn't a fully definitive website listing every TV channel's past and present schedules - that would certainly make sourcing these lists a lot easier. But if these lists are wanted and desired (maybe a wider discussion) then the overwhelming responsibility of WP:V applies as much to them as any other claim. Bonusballs (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Correct, and i agree, if it was a case of this was one off article with it ia agree compeltely i need ot provide a soruce, but since this has much wider implications it neweds to be discussed fully and proejct or community consesu gained ont eh wy forward for all articles. I think ic ould provide a site taht does toa degree provide current schedule and possible history data, but coming soon i could only provide maybe 2 or 3 weeks in advance nothing more. to be hones ti am in the progress of making a site for tv guides and workign with broadcasters eventally some jsut now so tha tin teh future tehr ebea site which goes if posisble all eh way back to the begining of t so even air dates can be properlly sourced--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Schedule is definitely out as an option as Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Rubiscous (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
i agree wikiepdia is nota tv guide i support that reverting, but providigna source foa list is different just saying these are the show boradcat and puttinga timetable is different

--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's more about finding a reliable source that can vouch for the past, present or future broadcast of a particular series on a particular channel, rather than using Wiki as a TV Guide which as you both say is not on at all. Bonusballs (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I favour the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Whilst knowingly editing against established consensus can be disruptive, making any bold edit regarding an issue where no consensus has yet been established is acceptable, even encouraged as it can kick-start discussion and establishment of consensus if it turns out to be contentious. See Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus".
The citation needed tag is not carte blanche for adding unsourced material to an article, there needs to be at least some sort of expectation that a source is likely to be able to be found, and a level of trust that it is accurate, with at least one editor preferably more vouching for and protecting its inerrancy. The frequent vandalism adding false information to these lists and the length of time the vandalism often goes undiscovered throws their accuracy into doubt. The status quo but with tags does nothing to combat these vandalisms. Rubiscous (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've made some preliminary edits to the article, maybe this will go some way to helping. I think the approach needs to be different for each section. "Current Programming" is easy to verify - if any reputable TV listings website shows the programme currently airing on the channel, then that's a valid reference and very easy to source. Bogus additions to this category can be easily spotted if a reference is not provided, or does not check out. "Future programming" perhaps needs to be more agressive - as far as I can see there were no indications whatsoever of any of the programmes (except possibly Metajets, which is now current programming) as 'coming soon'. Not within the 14-28 days or so of the TV listings guides, anyway. With no other web references to back up the claims I think they can be removed from the article in good conscience. "Former Programming" is the trickier one and it's only here where I've used the refimprove tag. It's much harder to prove the past presence of a show on a channel (but not impossible - some use of archive.org may help) but doing so will take longer so it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow some time and leeway in the interim until the section can be fully referenced. But that's by no means a carte blance for the status quo to rock forevermore, and it should be actively worked on and revisited. Obviously this is just my attempt at making things better - would be interesting to see what everyone else thinks or if they can suggest other approaches. Bonusballs (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
comign soon should only be listed if there is a source provided and verified by others, the old stuff it going to be very hard ot source and i think we need to get a conesus on what to do with it as it is histrorical data, certianly current program now with source if we arive them can easily be done but the other oens harderbut majority of them ic an verify from perosnally watchign the channel but this isnt good enogbn we need a conesus on what to do and do it with all channels--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on current and future listings but I would question the notability and usefulness of a list of shows that a channel has historically syndicated from someone else. Shows that they have produced or contributed towards the production of, fair enough. Rubiscous (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
what is wikipedia it is place for histical information and a channel previous shows is historical--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a place for notable information, historical or otherwise. If the fact that a specific programme was syndicated to a specific channel produced significant verifiable cultural impact then it should of course be documented, although it might be better suited to being documented in prose explaining its significance rather than in a list. But if it made no impact that's a different story. Imagine if someone notable, say Sylvester Stallone, went on record in a magazine a few years ago, and happened to mention in passing that he had bought a DVD the night before and watched it with his friends, and then made no further mention of the event in subsequent interviews. The only difference between this hypothetical non-event and a non-eventful TV syndication would be scale! Rubiscous (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a good point - although at the moment the lists for cable and satellite channels are managable due to their relatively short lifespans, in extremis you end up with articles such as List of BBC children's television programmes which indiscriminately lists every programme which has ever aired in the last 70 years, irrespective of notability or whether the BBC even made the show. There's comparatively little value (perhaps even a negative one) in such an approach. Maybe 'lists of every television programme ever' are more appropriately housed on websites like IMDB? I can see the arguments on both sides. Bonusballs (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Unident

I am acutally in agreement with yo rubiscous in a way as well as bonusball, but the poitn sitll stands ths isnt about this article in partically if you change this one then it standa all articlers must be the same, this is my main point we need a conesus on what should be done to the wider ranging proble, once that estbalished then edit the articles away to the conesus until then it being far to bold, im happy to bring this up in the main project or wider community as it gets a bigger views and consesus then--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would recommened start achvibing the references for hte current shows so if and when they go off the channelt eh link will still havea reference--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unverified information

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Following on somewhat from the above discussion, part of this article has been tagged since May 2011 ([3]) for lack of references. The main culprit for this was the long list of programmes which was completely unverified and quite likely to have been subject to vandalism (addition of incorrect information). Once tagged, material cannot be allowed to stay indefinitely: there has been plenty of opportunity for any of the regular editors of this article to fix the problem, but none has done so. Hence I have removed the unverified content, per our policy on verifiability.

From now on, please do not reinstate or add any information to the article without providing a reference to a reliable source. I'll be watching this article for a while, and will be happy to engage in reasoned discussion about this issue. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  13:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is going to be a significant case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there are thousands of largely unverified list articles like this one which, in the main, have been broadly tolerated by the Wikipedia community, and the case to delete any one article while thousands of others remain untouched is not one which most people would understand. I'll point again towards List of BBC children's television programmes as an example of how these things get out of control. Maybe the way to address the problem, though, is to work to add references rather than just deleting the entire list? That really just ensures that other editors will put it back, because, again, they see the same lists on other similar articles and would then feel that this one has something missing. That said, a significant past problem in referencing articles like these has been editors who come along and see references pointing to online programme guides, and throw up their hands and shout "WP:NOTTVGUIDE", removing both the entries and the references on that basis, or disallowing references that verify the presence of the programme on a particular TV channel, because the website for the TV channel is considered a primary source or some kind of advertising. Wiki policy makes it easy for determined deletionists to construct these kind of "lose:lose" situations.
It's definitely correct that this article has been extensively vandalised in the past - pretty much any edit from an 86.4x.xxx.xxx IP address tends to be the work of one particular editor with apparent long-term issues, and while those edits are often to add shows that they would like to see, or perhaps can imagine seeing, on the channel, they do at least seem to have some connection with the channel and are not always wrong. It seems fair to say that the worst of the vandalism or more heinous addition of material that NEEDS sourcing (such as the endless 'Coming Soon' claims) have been kept at bay. Bonusballs (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those valuable comments – I know you've been involved in this topic area for far longer that I have. Let me first clarify that I'm not about to go on a deletion spree: although I have some reservations about the inclusion and the value of such lists in our articles (the boundary of WP:NOTTVGUIDE seems to be intentionally unclear), if consensus is that they are encyclopedic and useful, I'm not going to crusade against that. But I picked this article and Tiny Pop because the programme lists have clearly been polluted by vandalism and it would appear to need a great deal of research to accurately recreate them in full. My view is that unless someone is prepared to put that work in, then we are better off without them. Information of any sort that gives the impression of reliability but which is in fact inaccurate is far worse than no information at all, and this may well be the case here.
There's a wider principle here too: if Wikipedia is ever to improve, we have to ensure that its content is properly referenced and I see this stand as one more small step on the way towards that goal. As you've pointed out, there's a particular problem where content has been repeatedly added/changed by editors (mostly IPs) who will not explain their changes. Discussion is a central principle of Wikipedia (as I noted over at Talk:Tiny Pop) and I believe that anyone who continues to edit without responding to requests to discuss their edits should quickly lose the right to the assumption of good faith. We need to discourage people who behave in that way. Incidentally, did you get any response from any IPs that you contacted after this discussion? I bet you didn't!
What to do? Well, along the lines you suggest, a good solution may be to start to re-create a list by tracking down and referencing a few entries, tagging the list as incomplete. I tried this at the end of March at List of programs broadcast by Jetix and it has since been built on by Spshu (to whom many thanks are due) – note that the refs come from a variety of sources. It wouldn't be possible now for anyone to revert back to the dodgy old list in that article, and it may be worth trying the same process here too. What do you think?  —SMALLJIM  16:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think trying to source the list, or at least as much as can be sourced, is a good start - I'll try to devote some time to that soon if I can. And you're quite right about the previous IP editor you mentioned, needless to say they did not respond or engage at all. :) Bonusballs (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've had a go at the lead, and also added a list of what CSC calls the channel's "defining programmes" on its own website. Not sure about using that exact phrase in the article (as I have done, for now), but it certainly shows what the channel's owner sees as the most important output. I know it's all primary source reference material that's not independent of the subject, but it's the best source for basic information like this. Hope you agree,  —SMALLJIM  22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to thank IP 86.138.156.214 (talk · contribs) who spent some time yesterday adding referenced info to this and several related articles.  —SMALLJIM  10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been no response from this IP to the similar matter raised at Talk:Tiny Pop#Let's try to sort this out here, so I've reverted to the better referenced version, as explained in bullet 4 there. No problem if someone wants to remove the red link from Finding Stuff Out on the basis that it's not likely to warrant its own article. —SMALLJIM  23:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pop (UK and Ireland). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pop (UK and Ireland). 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:

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) 07:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Logos

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To Make The Logos More Complete, Maybe Add The 2006-2008 Logo86.183.179.67 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pop_(British_and_Irish_TV_channel)/Archive_1&oldid=1143714198"