Jump to content

Talk:BBC One/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Prime Time Schedule

I have produced a prime time schedule for BBC One based on that of Australian Broadcasting Corporation page: 

Schedule Removed

The above represents BBC One's usual primetime schedule. It does not reflect one-off events, and program starting times may vary and are not exact. For up-to-date information, see the British Broadcasting Corporation's online television guide. (BBC TV Guide)

Please feel free to add it if you feel it is worth including. I wasnt too sure because BBC1 does change alot but .. see what you think Gingerblokey 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This schedule is not allowed as it violates WP:NOT#DIR. AxG ҈ ►talk 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse

I personally find it highly amusing that they bothered to resume the Mickey Mouse cartoon of 1939 when they resumed transmission in 1946 as few would even remember what had last been shown when they went off air seven years previous! "Only in the UK..."

PMelvilleAustin 05:58, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't so much for the benefit of the viewers - it was really symbolic, showing that this was still the same BBC Television Service, picking up and continuing as before. There was some debate internally about the move, particularly as it was felt that the particular cartoon was more dated than others (it apparently spoofed some movie stars who had since fallen out of popular view), but it was felt important, for the morale as much as anything else, to provide a stubborn sense of continuity to what had gone before. Angmering 21:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Demythologising the wartime shutdown

This Transdiffusion article explains what really happened on 1/9/39. At 10 a.m. instructions came to close down the service by noon. The planned schedule was for an outside broadcast from the Radiolympia exhibition (which itself was closed down early at 12.30 p.m.) between 11 a.m. and noon, which overran until 12.05, then they showed the unscheduled Mickey's Gala Premiere until 12.13, then they did "sound and vision test signals" followed by announcements by Fay Cavendish; the station didn't close down until 12.35 (details from "PasB" (Programmes as Broadcast) for 1.9.39). On the restart in 1946, the Mickey Mouse cartoon wasn't shown until about 20 minutes after transmissions restarted. The myth of the abrupt shutdown and restarting in the same place appears to originate in a 1981 tv documentary which has been picked up and repeated in several other documentaries since. - Arwel (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well put that in then. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The closure during a cartoon is supported by such an overwhelming number of reliable sources (including a BBC One documentary only a few weeks ago) that its falsity is irrelevant. It is not Wikipedia's place to adjudicate between conflicting claims and so even though the story is known to be untrue, it can only come down to the word of one reliable source against the words of numerous other reliable sources. We therefore have three choices: (1) amend the policy on Verifiability, (2) mention the story about the service being cut during a cartoon as the mainstream view, and then add the true story as an alternative theory, or (3) cut out the offending material altogether. For the time being, I have done the latter. --80.0.119.25 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The wartime shutdown during a Micky Mouse shutdown was refered to in two programmes I have seen recently: Alan Yentob's "Imagine" about the start of TV and a programme called "Auntie's inside story". ••Briantist•• talk 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

This should be moved to "BBC One". Writing it all in capitals is just an affectation. The letters ONE are a word, not a set of initials.

Andy G 16:40, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But that's their official way of writing it so I think it should stay. Angela 17:03, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)
me too jimfbleak 17:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's only the way they write it at the moment -- no doubt they'll change the style next time they relaunch the BBC house style. Arwel 17:35, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't actually voting on "BBC ONE", though it's true I do think this all-capitalised style is a bit of an affectation. It's just a style thing the BBC have currently got, and I have no doubt that sometime within the next 10 years they'll rebrand their channels again to a more sensible BBC One or BBC 1. To my mind the numeric form of channel name seems more natural, but that's probably because I can remember when they first started having two channels, and they've used a digit for all except the last few years! :) I think if we were having a vote on channel names I'd settle for BBC One or BBC 1, but ONE makes no sense as it doesn't represent an acronym. Regards, -- Arwel 00:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Written originally on User talk:Angela - moved here by Angela.)
The spelling "BBC One" is even widely used on the BBC's own website (e.g. [1], [2]). --Wik 22:20, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Use of capitalisation is in many cases an important feature in defining corporate or name identity. For example, there is no such organisation as the True Catholic Church but there is an entity called the true Catholic Church, its lower cap t indicating an important factual analysis of itself, that it believes it is the true Catholic Church, not a separate catholic church with the word true being given equality in its title. BBC ONE, not BBC one or BBC One is the name of the station formerly BBC1. Writing BBC One is as wrong as writing United states of america or Coca cola. Its name is unambiguously BBC ONE and nothing else. If you are using the formal name of an organisation, you should use its capitalisation. In Ireland, for Nato (which is generally written as such in Europe) is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO is a different national organisation associated with tenants. Proportional Representation is a formal voting system, proportional representation is a broad collection of electoral systems who share principles of proportionality. SimilarlyNatWest is universally recognised as what used to be called the National Westminister Bank, Natwest is unrecognisable to most. Organisations use capitalisation to create a brand identity behind a word. If wikipedia is referring to that brand, it should recognise that fact, and not treat a brand identity which carries with it a recognition factor as merely a word. If Colgate calls itself that, we shoudn't decide that we for our own reasons want to call it cOLGATE. If Britain's main TV station calls itself, BBC ONE that is what we should call it, just as we should write about the true Catholic Church in articles, etc. Encyclopædias are based on reality, not fictionalising brand names to push an agenda. The suggestion that use of capitals is just a presentation choice is patiently absurd. FearÉIREANN 20:51, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Written originally on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions - moved here by Angela.)

I have to disagree. Many organizations like to write themselves in all capitals. This is not usually followed by others if it's not an acronym. For example, a German newsmagazine invariably refers to itself as DER SPIEGEL, but everyone else says Der Spiegel. --Wik 23:55, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
The BBC's own documentation frequently writes "BBC One" (the Annual Report does so consistently); its Teletext services write "BBC1". No-one is disputing what the channel calls itself (it would be wrong, for instance, to call it "BBC Channel One") -- only whether we need slavishly to follow every typographical change to its on-screen logo. What next? Are we going to have to change all references to the network that shows "Coronation Street" in Britain to read "itv"? -- Picapica 20:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's ITV1 and that's the way it is written on the ITV website [3] So no.Mintguy (T) 22:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My point precisely. It's "ITV1" -- even though the on-screen logo is written "itv1". And it's "BBC One" [4] -- even though the on-screen logo is written "BBC ONE". (By the way, ITV2 also shows "Coronation Street".) -- Picapica 09:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The naming of this page is not dependent on the on-screen logo. But how the BBC names the station in general. To be specific, as it is presented here http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/
"BBC ONE" isn't "how the BBC names the station in general" though, is it? It's how the BBC writes the name sometimes; as often as not it writes "BBC One" -- see [5] [6]. I still can't see any good reason for being more purist about this than the BBC itself. -- Picapica 13:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I totally vote for this being moved to 'BBC One'. The BBC are very inconsistant about whether they use capitals or not (see list below) and capitals (at least having the entire name in capitals) when it is a normal word are very rarely followed by others.

Just leave it as it is.Wikiwoohoo 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

All capitals:

Initial capitals:

No choice about whether to use all capitals:

Compounds:

  • CBeebies (also the only one whose logo is not all in capitals)



There is a difference between text in a logo and body text.

There is very often a difference between how an entity's name is written in a logo and how it appears in body text. There are many examples of this. Amnesty International is written as such, although its logo is in lowercase (except, oddly, in Germany, where poor understanding of capitalization presumably led to the official term being "amnesty international"!), and in recent years many high-tech companies have used unusual capitalization in their logos; for example the defunct software company Asera had a logo that read "AserA". Many, many company logos are written in uppercase, but you drive a Toyota, not a TOYOTA, drink Pepsi, not PEPSI, and watch a Sony television, not a SONY. Likewise, stylish logos are sometimes in lowercase, but you still have a Vodafone or Orange mobile phone, not vodafone or orange. And although its logo is written as "ebaY" the online aution house is written "eBay" in text.

BBC One appears as BBC ONE in its logo and usually in headings on BBC websites, where emphasis is required (this appears to be the BBC's house style), but otherwise in body text it is written "BBC One" — which is how it should be written here.

The following official link should clear things up: It contains the logo, headers including the term written in capitals, and body text written as "BBC One": [[7]]

--ProhibitOnions 11:58, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

The irony of this whole argument is that the BBC are now rebranding BBC-1, and the new logo has the word 'one' is lower-case. --TheIslander 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't you see this is an old discussion TheIslander and the name of the article will remane BBC One not BBC-1 or BBC one. User:London UK/Name 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC Writing Style Guidelines

You may be interested in this, the official line on capitalisation...

"In large areas of text ... and in picture captions, BBC brands are written in upper and lower case (eg BBC One), except CBBC which is all capitals. Television channels are written in words rather than numbers, except BBC News 24."
"In display adverts and posters, BBC brands ... should appear in capitals (eg BBC ONE). In press releases, television channels should appear in capitals, but all other services should be in upper and lower case, eg BBC News."

Tom- 20:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for finding that, Tom. I propose, on the grounds that a Wikipedia article is neither an advert nor a poster (and nor is it a press release), that this page be moved to "BBC One". -- Picapica 15:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Anyone going to do the honours?

Now that the page resides at the much more pleasing 'BBC One', is there any way someone can run a link-fixing Bot to change all the BBC ONE links in pages to BBC One ones? There are rather a lot of them... I'm afraid I know very little about bots, by the way, but from what I do know I believe this ought to be a possible and appropriate use for one? Angmering 12:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there a definitive list of these links anywhere, and are they chosen depending on the next programme? --Phil | Talk 09:23, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The original eight - Acrobats, Ballet (very, very rarely used, except in the Midlands where it's used into the local news), Capoeira, Festival (the "rave" one), Haka, Hip Hop (wheelchairs), Salsa, Tap Dogs. Added later, in this order: Music Video, Bollywood, Tango, Tai Chi, Tai Chi reflection version (since withdrawn), Skateboarders, Maasai. And two versions of the Christmas ident, one with the children descending from on high, and the other without. Capoeira exists in two edits, and a still version is the backup ident in case the server fails. (There's also a clock which uses the capoeira still as its background, but it has never been used and almost certainly never will.) They are used to a certain extent depending on the next programme - they don't use Festival into the news, for example. Bonalaw 15:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I should add that technically speaking there's twice as many as that, since they all exist in versions with and without the Subtitles flag. Bonalaw 16:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. Just a couple of queries: is "Capoeira" the two blokes fighting on top of the skyscraper, and is "Music Video" the dancing girls who all bear a vague resemblance to Louise? --Phil | Talk 16:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Very vague, in the case of the black one. ;-) But yes, right on both counts. Bonalaw 17:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it does not cite its sources. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

70th anniversary celebrations?

Are there going to be any celebrations for the world's oldest TV station's Platinum Jubilee this year? (I don't live in the UK, so I don't get to watch BBC One.) I remember there was quite a lot of coverage (at least documentaries and looks back) for the 50th anniversary in 1986. It would be nice if they did the same now, but they might be saving it all up for the 75th, or just ignoring it. ProhibitOnions 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are no celebrations planned for the 70th. There will definitely, however, be big celebrations for the 75th. --TheIslander 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Claim of oldest television station in the world

I have removed the claim, in the first sentence of the article, that BBC One is the oldest television station in the world. Even if we go back to 1929 when BBC transmitted broadcasts originating from Baird Television, several television stations were already on the air in the United States. The earliest of those began regular broadcasts in May 1928, and continues on the air today as WRGB. See the table Oldest television station. While it is true that WRGB's predecessor W2XB was off the air for a few years in the 1930s, during the transition from mechanical broadcasting to electronic broadcasting, keep in mind that BBC One was also off the air between September 1935 and August 1936 (during that same mechnical/electronic transition period), and from September 1939 to June 1946 during the war. — Walloon 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Now the main page says it started as the first high-def service in 1936. That can't be right! I assume the meaning is that the TV station was the first regular TV station to go HD (I don't know if that's true, but it's at least plausible), and that it started -- as a Non-HD service -- in 1936. But that's definitely not what it says. Someone who didn't know better could easily be misled. --70.187.171.21 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Upon re-reading the article, it becomes clear that I misunderstand the use of high-definition used in the intro to this article and on the main page. The high-definition article does in fact have a section that points out this different usage of "high-definition" I still think the claim, while apparently technically true, is misleading because it is likely to be misunderstood to mean that in 1936 BBC One launched a digital HDTV broadcast. No, I don't have a good solution at the moment. --70.187.171.21 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Early television systems were divided into "low definition" (30 to 120 lines), "medium definition" (120 to 240 lines), and "high definition" (240 lines and above). These categories were articulated in the mid-1930s during the BBC's planning for an all-electronic television service. — Walloon 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The BBC's own phrasing is deliberate when it comes to the first issue: "The world's first regularly scheduled high-definition television service"' [8] [9] [10] and this source not suitable for Wikipedia. There were earlier services - some via the BBC's own facilities - but only the service 70 years ago this month was both high-definition (240 lines or greater) and regularly-scheduled (ie not test transmissions). Other services were irregular (ie testing) or were lower definition.

What has happened since then is that the term "high definition" has been applied to the competing 1000+ line standards developed since the 1980s. Back in 1936, "high definition" was applied to the services in 240line (the Baird film-intermediate mechanical system) and 405line (the EMI electronic system that was standard in the UK from 1936-39 (interrupted by war) and 1946-1964 (when the 20 year replacement by 625line period began)). Services from Paris - at 441lines - and elsewhere at lines comfortably under 500 - didn't start until after the BBC Television Service had been running for quite some time.

Younger people tend to think of the 1000+ services as being "high definition" because that is the marketing term currently being used for super-high definition. In the article Broadcasting in East Germany and related articles, editors chose the term "standard definition" to remove this confusion. This dumbed-down, but understandably so, term is probably what would work here, even though it foresakes historical accuracy. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Are there any further objections to the re-nomination of this article as a good article? I've made a few changes as have many others. Wikiwoohoo talk 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Availability outside the UK

When I was last in continental Europe, I was able to see BBC1 in the Netherlands. If this is still the case, you may want to add that fact to the availability section. Also for ROI viewers, what local news is seen in BBC1, is it the one from London or in Northern Ireland? --58.69.63.199 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In Ireland, the cable operaters give us BBC1/2 Northern Ireland, as they are generally sourced from DVB-T reception in/near the North. Of course, satellite dish owners here can watch any regional variations of BBC/ITV channels they want. --Zilog Jones 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
BBC One (and Two) have been aviliable in cable systems in Holland for decades. This is because the Television Without Frontiers Directive allows cables systems to repeat terrestrially receivable signals (as the BBC terrestrial channels are from Hoek) as long as no charge is made for them. This is the reason most Dutch people speak English very very well, and also why, unlike a lot of Europe, they use British English words (lift rather then elevator etc). Briantist 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

When exactly did the station's official name change from being written BBC1 to BBC One? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1997, I think. Angmering 08:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The article should probably indicate this. (It's sort of implied in the "On-screen identity and logos" section, but it never really comes out and says it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


The BBC one logo is specifically designed to be white-on-red so I have restored the background colour. Briantist 13:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This version of the Logo (grey box background with white text) has been supplied by the BBC for use on web sites. The logo is in white and includes the spacing around. Please DO NOT change to inferior edits in the wrong colour as this breaks the agreement on usage. ••Briantist•• talk please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediabank/ ••Briantist•• talk 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine but it's a bit too big. AxG (talk) (guest book) 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with using the smaller black version for the article. The BBC's guidelines are based on the logo in any form - colour or size. The policy of Wikipedia is that the logo is only used where it is actually a part of the article and cannot be used anywhere else such as on a userpage, portal, template or category. The black version of the new BBC One logo is fine for use within the article and the BBC would have no problems with it providing it is not used for commercial gain or anything else that would be detrimental to the standing of the BBC or the channel, which of course it would not. The black version is also much better as it is clearer, takes up less space and also looks better within the article infobox. I will now upload it again. Before uploading the grey version again, please either contact me or discuss it here. Hope that makes sense anyway. Wikiwoohoo 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You have not provided a reference to back up your POV, and I have. The logo is the same size as all the others. You must NOT edit a corporate logo as it breaks the rules. It's YOU who must not revert without discussion. ••Briantist•• talk 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How NOT to use the BBC Logo:

Do not reproduce the logo in an unauthorised colour
Do not apply gradients or special effects (including 3D effects)
Do not tint or add graduated tones
Do not italicise the logo
Do not distort, skew or bend the logo
Do not use the logo as a repeat pattern
Do not outline the logo
Do not use the logo within plain text
Do not attempt to reproduce the logo using computer systems

Do not present the logo vertically or turn it on its side

[11] ••Briantist•• talk 09:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediabank/terms.shtml

3.5 The Applicant will not use the Trade Marks in a manner likely to prejudice their legal protection or validity.

••Briantist•• talk 09:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While we need to be careful how we use the logos of organisations and television channels, the guidelines you are referring to above on how not to use the logo are in fact referring to the BBC logo rather than that of BBC One. If you would like to contact the BBC and ask whether using a black version of the BBC One logo is acceptable then we can truly sort out which image is best. Wikiwoohoo 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The image is from the Mediabank, and their rules http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediabank/terms.shtml refers the corporate guidelines above. If you wish to argue PROVIDE EVIDENCE NOT OPINION PLEASE ••Briantist•• talk 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For more information please see BBC - Commissioning - TV Branding "The official site for BBC commissioning, offering information and advice on the commissioning and delivery process for TV and BBCi and TV credit and branding guidelines." ••Briantist•• talk 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI also BBC - bbc.co.uk Standards & Guidelines - Home Page] ••Briantist•• talk 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing me with the links on guidelines. However, according to the BBC Media Bank registration page [12], content is only made available to registered users who will make use of them on a UK based site. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Wikipedia which bases its servers in the USA. Therefore as far as I can tell, we are unable to use the version of the image from the Media Bank here. I'd welcome you to correct me if I'm wrong. A simple email to the BBC or the Media Bank itself would solve the confusion once and for all otherwise if you'd like to do that perhaps? Wikiwoohoo 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Will do. ••Briantist•• talk 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have received an email from the BBC confirming that I can use the MediaBank logos on Wikipedia ••Briantist•• talk 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that out. You might want to add a copy (minus names and email addresses) on the summary page of the image. 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. ••Briantist•• talk 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all this talk about the logo, no one's actually bothered to write a fair-use rationale - might want to fix that, else it'll have to be nominated for speedy-deletion. TheIslander 13:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a fair use rationale for the logo. Boy1jhn 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moot. It's out of date. The current logo is still white on red, but is lower case. 212.50.191.46 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. That was me. I forgot to log in. Anyway, an image from this page: BBC One 'Circle' idents could be used in the infobox. Digifiend (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already a BBC One logo on Wikipedia, but some IP keeps changing it to the one that was used between 2002 and 2006, I have reverted his edits. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Fincham

I notice that the "Impact of Peter Fincham" section is copied word for word across from the BBC One section of his article. I'm fairly neutral about this, as it is at least relevant, but what's the general feeling on such direct reproduction between articles? Angmering 08:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I took from the Peter Fincham article as I saw that it contained information about BBC One that was missing from this article. I'm intending to edit the section over time with new information that I can find so it won't resemble the Peter Fincham article so closely, but I've not really been able to find much extra yet. I'll have a go at re-wording it slightly though - Boy1jhn 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Well written, but to become a FA-class article, it must be expanded with more information. Some suggestions for expansion would be information on the Heads of Drama, like Sydney Newman. Good work overall.--Abebenjoe 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But Heads of Department cover the whole of the BBC, rather than specifically BBC One as a channel. Angmering 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I don't believe this article received an adequate review, nor do I believe it meets the GA criteria. For that reason, I am nominating the article at WP:GA/R. Please feel free to participate in the discussion there. Reasons will be listed there. Regards, Lara♥Love 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus reached at good article reassessment, this article has been removed from the GA list. Please see the archived discussion for more information. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC Television Service

Even though this page redirects from BBC Television Service the only reference to this was in the infobox - so I've mentioned it in the first para, along with the few years that it was renamed BBC tv (1960→64) as the only other mention is in BBC Television. Also added BBC tv to infobox - if anyone can improve this layout, then please do. Zir 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio

It is my belief that while the info box is correct that it's (primarily) broadcast in 16:9, this is only the case for the digital version of the channel.

The analogue version is broadcast in 4:3 except when the program was created as 16:9, in which case it is broadcast in 14:9. Or, to be precise, 16:9 programmes are broadcast in a 14:9 format embedded in a 4:3 frame.

This is also the case for BBC 2.

This should probably be reflected within the article.

Does anyone else agree?

El Paulio (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC One HD

I stopped the redirect from BBC One HD to BBC One and created a new page. This is because BBC One HD is due to launch this Autumn. User Jasmeet 181 reverted it for some reason (didn't say why). I'm putting it back now. If you disagree Jasmeet 181, please say why on this page. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The service is only a simulcast, it does not warrant it's own article when a small piece can be put into the BBC One article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 08:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As AxG said, the service is a simulcast of BBC One, much like Channel 4#Channel 4 HD. You'll also find that most of the simulcast HD channels (see List of HD channels in the UK) do not have a separate article, neither do timeshift channels. The only exception is ITV1 HD, which started out with a separate schedule like BBC HD. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks folks. Qwerta369 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Help! I can't see where the problem with the box format happened, I tried reverting, but the problem is still there.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Network vs channel

Please don't undo revisions without explanation - hence I've just redone my last change. To discuss this point please see the BBC Two talk page re the same change made there. Ben Finn (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

ROI

What is ROI? --84.61.186.139 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland. It's Malpass 93! (drop me a ___) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1

Article comments for GAN

Hi, Despite the good work that has gone on here, there are a few problems ahead of a GA nomination.

Firstly, new sources would be needed, notably serious books discussing the BBC.

All the programming subsections could be combined and discuss the output in a more authoritative way, with better analysis and less contemporary examples.

The history is a mess and POV, being as it is just plucked from occasional news stories. Keep up the hard work, and please ask if any more help is needed. Best--Ktlynch (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts Ktlynch. Cloudbound (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Date confusion

The infobox (and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 2) says that BBC Television was launched 2 November 1936, but that date doesn't show up in the article anywhere. Instead, BBC One#History says regular television programming began 22 August 1932. So why is 2 November considered the launch date? howcheng {chat} 09:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That was the official launch date of the service, previously they had been test transmissions. The first regular programming was actually in 1929 but was run by John Logie Baird over the BBCs transmissions. The BBC took over the broadcasts in 1932 but they were still on the Baird system. The main difference is High Definition - Described as at least 240 lines per picture. The 1932-6 Baird system used 30 lines, no where near high definition. When the channel officially launched on 2 November 1936 two systems were used - a new Baird system on 240 lines and an EMI system on 405 lines. This is all from http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/tvhistory/contest.shtml Hope this helps. Rafmarham (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Old schedule

Is it really nescesairy to have the schedule of opening night added as a table in the middle of the early history section? It shoudl eb converted to text and without minor details such as testcards and idents. Rafmarham (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I was a little concerned about the amount of links their are, and yes it is a bit too big. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who

What about if Doctor Who should get the good ratings on the top one of the five most viewing programmes later this year. SmallSoldiers123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Time shift channel

Have created a redirect from BBC One + 1 following an announcement today by Tony Hall that there will be a time shift service. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Current Issues with this page

What are the actually issues because and its seems a few other don't believe there are issues.

TDFan2006 has been judge and jury with this page. Yet he seems to do it with every page he works on, every time. One day he adds in Multi-issues problems then two days later (how is that enough time to sort something out) splits up pages etc because he thinks it better without asking anyone. As far I can see the user is not been very helpful with the pages he appears on. I think he's only spiting pages up just so it looks like he is creating pages or kept busy with stuff and not making helpful changes. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled There many pages which are much longer than this on wiki. Now not to unfair to TDFan2006, but many other more experienced users have been on this page and then seen the need to cut it up. Someone has already told him not to do this type of thing with out talking with other editors. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TDFan2006&oldid=600428918 --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No no no no no (that's a lot of nos!), I split pages because I feel they are made up almost completely by History. And personally, I find the article too long to read comfortably. Maybe I should... umm... ask before I split it.
I have also now removed the issues tags TDFan2006 places since there make no since. In January - three months ago, He made this changed to this page " I don't exactly think the article is incomplete anymore, it has plenty of past and present info." https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=BBC_One&diff=589593635&oldid=589482329 Yet three months down the line, its too long, and the refs are not good enough, yet he read the pages months ago and there were not issues now, he never thought it was to long to read then. What has changed? the page is not much different since that point.
TDFan2006 Has postage the following "I can't seem to find much on the history when researching. I found this page to be quite long. I didn't put the issues before because I didn't know the Unreliable Source and Very Long ones existed until around February."
I think were getting down to the head of the problems, its just you. with "I can't" and "I think" just NO. You should be thinking, That could, that needs a better source or where that information, That doest sound right. YOUR personnel opion or issues NEED TO BE LEFT AT THE DOOR. There is over 100 Refs on this page, so I suggest you try Alot HARDER on researching refs, because your doing a pretty poor job. --Crazyseiko (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when it comes to Wikipedia. Implicating and inculcating insults at somebody does not make them wish to contribute to Wikipedia. It makes them wish to depart it, instead. Please try to be civil in your conversations with others. Perhaps I could be the main arbiter in this case. Now, Crazyseiko, it should be noted that just because some pages are longer than others, that this page can be too. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may need to be given a read as well. You can take up the issues on the relevant page you're talking about's talk page. Maintenance tags are added to an article to help improve it, since that's the general goal of tags. The purpose is to improve the article, not to just label it. Just from my general POV, I can see that is indeed a bit too verbose in some sections. Ging287 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FanforClarl. This is a pending case. Thus all issues raised are on hold for this page.
Full details: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDFan2006/Archive
We are back on to this again, Its been claimed the following
  • Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.
  • This article possibly contains original research.
  • This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
  • Which parts have unreliable sources?
  • Which parts is original research?
  • IF this history section is NOT the problem to read and navigate comfortably, What is? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A month and not one single point has been raised here about the issues, not even by the user who want to make changes. What are the problems and WHY are the tags still here? --Crazyseiko (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Splitting

There is no consensus for this suggested split by a now indef-blocked sock puppet. Compelling argument made that the history section was within acceptable margins per WP:SIZERULE. Fallacious support on the basis that the history section contained irrelevant info; which has now been excised to a more relevant article. Bellerophon talk to me 06:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we should split the History part into its own article, because the section is very long. What'd 'you think? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE. You have failed to grasp the content of wiki, nearly all the information on the pages are history, ;) It also seems your idea of many pages, is the History content is less or equal to content relating to present day, which to be fair is rather thin on the ground. The templates in general is where you can see an overall of all the pages not wiki page itself. I personnel don't believe the article is to long, you have to remember everyone has to view the page not just your good self. --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Some pages have their history split. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi The Toon Disney Guy could you please give me an example of this? Flat Out let's discuss it 12:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Israeli–Palestinian conflict and History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Thanks The Toon Disney Guy, I don't think its too long just yet but this is something i might support down the track. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I personally think it's fine as it is. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The readable prose size of this article is about 40,000 bytes (excluding footnotes), which is acceptable. Also, if the article was to be split you'd need to leave a lengthy summary in the history section. Splitting off a section without leaving a summary just means the reader has to click twice to get the full article and doesn't improve readability at all. Also, the article feels quite bare and leaves the viewer less informed without a history section. Väsk (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although there is a lot of text in History - that in general is what is supposed to happen as it's a Wikipedia page! As per Väsk I agree the article looks plain without, and the History is a crucial section of a lot of articles. If we applied this in general - we'd be changing thousands of articles! Adrianw9 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The vast majority of this article is ancient history. BBC1 did not exist until 1964 but this article lumps the complete history of The BBC Television Service in with it. Likewise a blow by blow account of every schedule change made by each of the previous controllers may be of interest to those specifically seeking the history, but not necessarily to those wishing to find information about the 'BBC One' television channel on their screens today. Perhaps the article could be split out into separate 'History of the BBC Television Service' and 'History of BBC One' articles? Bonusballs (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Your suggestion is the first proper suggestion about this page. Said information from the Early years would need to go here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/BBC_Television which is somewhat lacking in early history. The blow by blow account of every schedule change is about BBC one. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would happily more 1934- 1960's information over this evening if need be! The rest of the information on the page I would oppose spliting.

Early history has now been moved, since the page is about BBC One and not BBC Television as a whole, ( that page was very thin on the ground of details from this point in history and time so its now beefed it up)--Crazyseiko (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Channel number changes

Freeview channel numbers are changing from 03 Sept 14 PM

http://www.freeview.co.uk/articles/help/advance-notice-freeview-tv-guide-update-in-september-2014.html

109.158.234.72 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC One. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC One. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC One. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BBC One. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC One. 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) 19:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BBC One. 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) 03:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BBC One. 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) 07:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_One/Archive_1&oldid=1118321647"