Talk:Channel Ten

Slogans

Unless someone disagrees, I'm going to remove the list of slogans. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). It doesn't add anything to the article, and has had a template requesting references for a while now. There are other places people can go for this type of information. I've posted similar messages at Talk:Channel Nine and Talk:Channel Seven. Tntnnbltn 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that the list of slogans on Channel Nine, Channel Seven, Channel Ten, and ABC TV, do not belong on their respective wikipedia articles. Also, their references are not cited. A link to an external site that contains slogan information is a good alternative. Stickeylabel 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't even think about removing those lists. Eddie Blake 10.50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your reason for keeping them? Tntnnbltn 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll find a lot of US and Canadian television station articles have a list of slogans, catchphrases, these are no different, except for the fact that these ones pretty much cover every era of television in this country. They should stay. Big Dan 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The precedent is set in those articles to have the list on a separate page, List of ABC slogans for example. I don't see the need for them at all, very few people who read the Network Ten Article would actually care what their slogans were, less what the words that they used for 5 months in 1973 for their idents. But if they have to be there at all, a separate page is the best option --Whitehornmatt 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest references or citations for the dates attached to the mock logos as i don't believe those to be correct (especially the 1963 date) Andjb 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(The previous comment was written at Talk:Channel Seven. I decided to shift everything here so we can don't have to keep track of three seperate pages.) Tntnnbltn 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the slogans list and created a seperate page for it. I'll be doing that soon for ABC TV, Channel Seven, and Channel Nine. Eddie Blake 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The main issue with Eddie Blake creating a slogan page (see List of Network Ten Slogans) is the fact that the page is not an article, it is merely a list of uncited, unconfirmed and Pre-Network slogans. I can currently only think of two options; to move only the network slogans back to the channel page, and then move all the station-based and state-based slogans to their respective station articles (as was similarly done with the logos previously), and then confirm and cite each slogan; or the second option, remove the slogan lists on every channel page, as was initially requested by Tntnnbltn. Unless properly referenced, I agree with the second option. Please reply with your opinions. Thanks. Stickeylabel 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of reorganising the Network Ten Slogans page into a more understandable format, feel free to attack it with a knife if you feel it needs to be done. --Whitehornmatt 03:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Created a new article for Channel Seven slogans with references added to both that and to the Channel Ten slogans article. --Eddie Blake 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with those references is that none of them are really of any use as sources, they are more related links. Unless either of those sites has a section that has every single one of those slogans with a video/image of them then they aren't fully referenced. Besides half of those aren't slogans, they are just words used in idents. Ten's slogan in 2005 wasn't 'What I Like About You A' it was, and has been for many years 'Seriously'. If these lists were cut down to actually being what the title of the articles say they are, and be lists of network slogans, rather than list of random words used in the idents they are now you would find it much easier to find sources that are somewhat useful. --Whitehornmatt 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed MediaSpy from the related links. MediaSpy would not hold up to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as anyone could've made up anything and posted it there. I doubt AusTVHistory and Australian Television Archive would hold up either, as both are just personal websites. I suggest doing what Whitehornmatt suggested and cutting back the list to actual slogans, instead of every taking words from the IDs. You're more likely to find a reliable published source which mentions these slogans then. Last year a couple of books were published for the 50th anniversary of Australian television -- when I get time I'll get some out from the library and see if any contain histories of network slogans. --Tntnnbltn 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page for List of Seven Network slogans is now open. Eddie Blake 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page for List of Network Ten slogans is now open. Eddie Blake 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

I think that Channel Seven be moved to Seven (TV Channel) and Channel Ten to Ten (TV Channel). These are the names referred to on air. Channel Nine refers to itself by that name on air ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what name the channels refer to themselves as on-air, for example, Channel Nine refer's to it self as both Channel Nine and Nine on-air, yet on their website, they call the channel, Channel Nine. The same is with Seven, they refer to the channel as both Channel Seven and Seven on-air, yet on their Yahoo7 website, they refer to the channel as Channel Seven. I believe the article's names should stay as they are, as they are their official and formal names. Another great example is with ABC TV, where they refer to themselves mainly as ABC on-air and only rarely ABC TV, yet the channel's official name is in fact ABC TV. Channel's just seem to simplify their names on-air to allow for easier branding. Stickeylabel 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think these articles need to be split. With the list of slogans being removed, the Channel articles are just programming and logos. The network articles are just history and affiliates. It would make much more sense to merge them. I just whipped up Seven Network/draft and it is much clearer and complete than having both Channel Seven and Seven Network. (The draft still needs work -- I haven't rewritten any of the history section.)

Also, it's hard to split the two. For example, are we discussing the history of the television channel or the Seven Network? Are the historical logos old logos of the television channel, or old logos of the network? Even if there is a difference between the two (one is the network, the other is the channel it operates), the two articles are so similar that it's needless to separate them. The confusion between the two is evident, with Channel Ten already receiving an AFD from someone who couldn't understand the difference. --Tntnnbltn 16:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep (See the top of the page). Please do not reopen the debate again (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Ten), as all we could do is repeat what everyone has said already. It does not matter that if the differences are minimal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all the information and article's should be presented in the most accurate and functional way. Although it may become harder to know where information goes, that is besides the point. I am in the process of adding an Identity section to both Channel Seve.n, Channel Ten, and Channel Nine, which will contain information about their on-air presentation (For an example see ABC2). I will also be adding channel history, containing programming history only. The history on the network's articles should only contain history on the network and assests. The logo's should only be on the channel page, as it makes more sense that way. Again, although I believe debating an issue is good, I do not see it neccassary to reopen a debate that has always found in favour of "Keep", the Channel Ten debate was not the first on its kind and their were many prior. Needless debates just reduce the time other wikipedians have. Remember in the case of the Seven, Seven Network Limited owns 50% of Seven Media Group, which owns the Seven Network, which broadcasts one main channel called Channel Seven, and also a digital only electronic program guide called Seven Guide, the Seven Network own's 50% of Sky News Australia, and used to operate C7 Sport, they also run Austext. As can be seen these are distinct things that require distinct articles. I hope this is the last of the issue.

Stickeylabel 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reopening the AFD debate. I'm just saying that it is pointless to try and separate these articles. I decided to be bold and add the Availability section to the Channel Seven article because it belongs there. (The affiliates listed at what you term "Seven Network" are only affiliates of Channel Seven -- they are not affiliated with any of its other content such as C7 or Sky News Australia.) --Tntnnbltn 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the initial proposal by Triseed, I would say that would be pointless paper shuffling. There is nothing detrimental about the article's present title. --cj | talk 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A symlink can always be made if anyone sees a need, I don't though Whitehornmatt 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird Advertisement

What is the meaning of that ad which was just on during the 8:00 simpsons? It was all static and distorted sound...then a frame flashed on for less than a second ^Talk User:Fissionfox 10:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)