Talk:BBC Sport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screen Width[edit]

BBC Sport is one of the few BBC entities which still regularly broadcasts in 4:3 ratio, as opposed to the wider 16:9 format used throughout the rest of the BBC

Is it ? I can't say as I've noticed that at all. Is it correcT? Perhaps the author is confused by the fact that when pictures from foreign broadcasters is used it is frequently in 4:3. Jooler 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly during football matches, when the image appears in 4:3 with black bars on either side of the screen on 16:9 TVs. If this is because of foriegn broadcasting, please edit my comment. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 10:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the line which reads "BBC Sport is one of the few BBC entities which still regularly broadcasts in 4:3 ratio on analogue transmissions, as opposed to the 16:9 widescreen or the 14:9 compromise ratio used throughout the rest of the BBC, although sport events which are produced in 16:9 are available in that format on digital platforms." as I belive it to be incorrect. All progammes transmitted via. analogue by the BBC are in 4:3. BBC Sport produce nearly all their sport in 16:9. The only 4:3 sport is sport for which they are not the host broadcaster. Scarletman 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I just knew I'd seen odd aspect ratios and black bars during BBC Sport broadcasts. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er...Scarletman's comments are totally wrong. On analogue, the BBC broadcast their programmes in 14:9 in a 4:3 frame. So the article was accurate. Marks87 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is a bit pointless really as it is true for all sports broadcasters that play feeds produced by hosts. So it has nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC at all. The way it is written and the way that it is so high up in the article suggests that this is something unique to the BBC. 195.245.252.204 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDTV[edit]

"Considering broadcasting the World Cup in HDTV" - out of date. The World Cup is on now! Are they broadcasting it in High Definition or not? Digifiend 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The matches are in HD - Fixed Adamcobb 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsorship[edit]

"Due to the public status of the BBC, advertising is forbidden and as a result, sports matches covered by BBC Sport are not allowed to be sponsored."

I'm not sure I understand what the above sentance is trying to say. Sponsors logos are displayed at the venue and on the clothing worn by competitors and many sports have sponsors names in the title (e.g. Powergen Cup, RBS Six Nations currently and before there was the AXA FA Cup). The BBC give the names in full. Alexj2002 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph. It is a common but completely unfounded misconception that the fact that the BBC doesn't broadcast commercial advertisements means that it can't mention brand names. This may have been true in the past, but for the last half-century or so is obviously not true. It's a pity that we had this seven-year time gap between the issue being raised and the article being fixed, but at least things do get fixed in the long run. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket coverage[edit]

There seems to be a clash here: first of all the article says that the BBC will show the 2007 world cup, then that coverage rights have been awarded exclusively to Sky Sports. Is there a mistake here?Gammondog 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

606[edit]

The 606 forums were not included, so I added a description of them. A Prodigy (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Assessment 2012[edit]

Hi, I have just read the article and from my perspective a lot needs to be done to improve. As a result, for the time being I have downgraded the article to a C as there are key sections missing.

As a result of the read, I have noticed some things that could be done to improve this article:

  • Include a small History section first thing. It mentions in the opening that BBC Sport became a separate department in 2000 (from BBC News if memory serves} but this is not elaborated. The section should be a brief description of the department and not a full account of each sports right gained/lost.
  • The Radio sports rights section needs to be extended. The TV rights is quite comprehensive but the article fails to adequately mention which radio sports rights are held by the BBC. The current section amounts to just three sentences.
  • The TV sports rights section should maybe be split off so that the section contains only the sports currently covered. The details of all the different programmes, their presenters and sports covered should become a separate section as I think this would work better in my opinion. Additionally, all sports the BBC does not have coverage to now should be in the previous coverage section.
  • Jargon should be kept to a minimum or explained. There is a section entitled 'Pundits' and as I am not a sports fan this term means nothing to me. As a result the contents of that entire section is completely lost on me. I am sure it makes perfect sense to those who frequently enjoy sport but for someone outside this group it means nothing.
  • Some of the specific information on programmes and presenters should probably be kept to that programme's page. Equally, greater links should be made to these articles, probably using the see also template at the top of the appropriate section.
  • Links can be made to the articles for BBC One/Two in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Also the channel names are officially BBC One and BBC Two as opposed to BBC1 and BBC2. Equally, BBC NI should be expanded to BBC Northern Ireland as the nation has not been branded BBC NI since 2006/7.
  • The link 'BBC Sports Online' redirects to this article but, with the exception of the closed 606 forum, there is nothing in the main article about the extensive BBC Sport website. Inspiration can surely be taken by the BBC Online page but something needs to be mentioned here. Completed 29 May 2012.
  • Similarily to the above point, a small section needs to be added about the service on BBC Red Button. Completed 29 May 2012.
  • A section on Operation should be included. This should mainly concern itself with the studio facilities at MediaCityUK, the previous facilities at BBC Television Centre, key members of staff in the department, broadcasts in HD and lack of advertising.Incorporated into History section.
  • At least add a small section about Sports Personality of the Year and the Unsung Hero Award. These highly visible and publicised events need some sore of recognition. Completed 24 June 2012.
  • Add some relevant free images and/or audio samples. It will help break up the large amounts of text.

It is a long and difficult list but I genuinely think that this will improve the article no end. At present it is only focusing on some areas of BBC Sport activity and not all. Regards, Rafmarham (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Why was my new section on the History of BBC Sport removed? It has a valid purpose on this article and explains the background to BBC Sport as a brand and as a department. BBC Sport is more than a TV sport broadcaster. Rafmarham (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BBC Sport. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presenters, Commentators, Pundits/Experts[edit]

Currently working on this section for the bbc sport site.

TV Presenters[edit]

Main presenters Duration Sports Notes
Sue Barker Tennis Wimbeldon Main Anchor
Gary Linker Football Match of the Day, Live Football & Football World Cup
Gabby Logan Athletics, Football, Olympics Main Athletics Championships Presenter, Stand in Football host & Olympics Highlights Presenter
Clare Balding [[

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.213.245 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: italicizing the article title[edit]

Should {{italic title}} be applied here to convert the article's title from BBC Sport to BBC Sport? The initial discussion is here: Talk:List of York City F.C. managers § Revert Dawnseeker2000 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCBEFORE: I see no ongoing dispute on this matter, nor any related discussion - let alone one that has deteriorated to the point where WP:RFC is the only way forward. Also, |style is used inappropriately, since you are not proposing a change to style guidelines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article title seems fine without italics as the name covers a wide range of television, radio and other sports broadcasting. There is no reason to change it to match the italic version of the name which is used specifically for citations from its website where, as an online news site with original content, it should generally be italicized. EdwardUK (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The initial discussion (the link to which was added after my first comment) seems to be about which parameter to use when citing the BBC Sport website rather than the title of this article. As the original RFC tag has been removed from this page a new one will be needed if there is still a reason to establish consensus on the use of italics here. However, the comments on the original discussion suggest no desire to change the title of this article to italics making an RFC on this particular matter redundant. If the aim is to define consensus on use of italics in citations, which is a separate issue, then a different RFC, at a more appropriate place, would be required. EdwardUK (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please expand on the "italic version" concept you mentioned and where editors might find more guidelines about it? Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 01:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinserted the rfc tag to keep this discussion going. The question of whether the article should have the italic title tag applied still needs to be be answered. The reasons given by two of the editors that have commented so far are unclear. The discussion request stems from the List of York City F.C. managers article, where there is talk of which citation parameter to use when citing BBC Sport.
  1. Mattythewhite claims that use of the "work" parameter (or any of its aliases) should be used in citations to BBC Sport. Any of these parameters add italics. Our article is not italicized and it should not be, so it follows that no citation should either. (S)he claims that BBC Sport is a website and that that is why the website parameter is correct. I'm challenging that idea.
  2. EdwardUK has now made the claim that there is an "italic version" of the article title and I've asked where editors should look for guidance as to where to find support of that concept.
I think that these two editors may be mistaken and that the ideas they've put forth are not necessarily on firm ground. I suggest that the use of italics in citations is based on the type of organization being cited. There are news organizations which are considered publishers (non-italic), some that are agencies (non-italic), and some which are considered websites (italic). My suggestion for citations is to simply follow the italicization scheme in the article. In the case of this one, it is not, so we use publisher, which makes sense. It is the sports news division of the BBC, which is also not italicized. Dawnseeker2000 02:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By italic version I am referring to the auto-formatting into italics caused by the citation template based on the parameters used. This being website=, based on the citations being from the BBC Sport website, as distinct from the organisation that operates it, which would use the publisher parameter if it was not omitted as being widely-known and the same as the work/website. There is information about the use of italics in the manual of style and numerous discussions about the parameters on the help page for citation style 1 and its talk page archives. EdwardUK (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawnseeker2000: My removal of the rfc tag was not intended to terminate discussion. It is perfectly normal practice to hold discussions that are not under an RfC banner. My point is that WP:RFCBEFORE has not been met - let alone exhausted - and so a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is unnecessary. RfC should be a late stage, not used as an initial step. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm new to this space. I've re-removed it. Thanks for that. Dawnseeker2000 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

history of BBC Sport[edit]

the history section currently starts with Grandstand, a programme that commenced in 1958. it says further information is available from Timeline of BBC Sport which says that BBC broadcasts commenced on 2 November 1936 and the Wimbledon Tennis Championships were first broadcast in June 1937, but neither of these history articles actually state what was the first sport broadcast on the BBC.

this article [1] says that the first LIVE sports broadcast was a tennis match between Bunny Austin and George Rogers. other sources suggest the date was Wednesday 21 June 1937.

this article [2], says that the first sports event to feature a live commentary was a boxing match on 4 February 1937. I will admit that it is not clear to me that the commentary can be live unless the sport itself is also live, but Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about what the sources say. although, on reflection, they might have had just the commentary with no actual television pictures broadcast, so that might not count as a television broadcast.

however, this article [3] suggests that both of those are wrong, and that the first live television, with commentary, was broadcast, by the BBC in 1931.

maybe an editor with an interest in this would be interested in doing the history section justice. Cottonshirtτ 07:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1] TV Licensing
  2. ^ [2] BBC dot com
  3. ^ [3] Country Life

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_Sport&oldid=1206203922"