Talk:CLOSE

'CLOSE' is Closedown.

This article is misleading and arguably incorrect. Arbiteroftruth maintains that "CLOSE is a unique service on BBC, and should not be redirected to the signoff page".

'CLOSE' means 'closedown'. Prior to 24-hour or near-24-hour broadcasting, channels used to close down for the night around this time, and it was listed in newspapers as "close" or "closedown".

Its usage nowadays may be less appropriate, but that doesn't make it a proper 'service' or programme as such. On the contrary, that's probably why they weren't bothered about billing it correctly.

It is not synonymous with 'Pages from Ceefax'. Although the latter is now generally restricted to the gap between late evening and early-morning programmes, it used to be shown at various times (including the afternoon(!)) when schedule gaps were more common. It was *never* billed as 'CLOSE'.

I am converting this back to a redirect. If anyone disagrees, can you please provide some convincing counter-argument to the above, and explain what 'CLOSE' stands for (as its capitalisation here indicates an acronym).

Fourohfour 11:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITV's closedown teletext service, ITV Nightscreen, has its own page, and Channel 4's closedown teletext service has its own entry, and they are not redirected. This page deserves no less.

Arbiteroftruth 18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You entirely missed the point.

What you're talking about is "Pages from Ceefax", and it has its own sub-entry on the Ceefax page. It used to go out at other times of the day (e.g. afternoon, when it was *always* billed as Pages from Ceefax), and just happens to have become restricted to the early-morning timeslot nowadays. It's still announced in the preceding voice-over as "Pages from Ceefax", but never as something like "CLOSE". They might say "We're closing for the night...", but it's more usually something like "that's the end of BBC2's normal programmes. Learning Zone will be here at two o' clock", yadda yadda.

It has also been billed as "Ceefax AM" and "Ceefax in Vision", but "Pages from Ceefax" is by far the most common name.

They show Pages from Ceefax after Closedown. It's that simple. There's no such "programme" or "service" as CLOSE. It's just an abbreviation for "Closedown", "close of programmes" or whatever. Can you tell me where it demonstrates otherwise (circular references to Wikipedia notwithstanding)?

Fourohfour 19:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fourohfour, it is completely appropriate that CLOSE should have its own page, afterall, ITV's and C4's counterpart has their own page. I know it is only Ceefax, but it is a service that you do not have to go to a particular channel to use. You can view them on BBC1 or BBC2. You do not have to go to Pg. 100 or something to use them. This is what sets it off from its sister service. Arbiteroftruth 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My God! Did you actually read *any* of my reply?!!!!! You just repeated the same thing.

Firstly, of course the service exists. Its name (official or de facto) is "Pages from Ceefax". Not CLOSE. See 1985 TV Guide here, for an example. and Google for more.

Either provide evidence (via links) that it's named 'CLOSE' ('close' as an abbreviation for 'closedown' won't count, obviously), or stop adding incorrect information to this page.

Secondly, I'm strongly opposed to the splitting up of closely-related information into little bitty articles. "Pages from Ceefax" *is* a service, but it's still a closely-related facet of Ceefax, and as such I feel it belongs in the Ceefax article. It has its own complete subsection and a redirect anyway. Personally, I think "4-Tel on view" should be part of the "4-Tel" article as well (and have now tagged it as such). ITV Nightscreen is no longer just static teletext, AFAIK, so warrants a separate article.

Fourohfour 11:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who redirected it in the first place, I agree with Fourohfour here. The name is, and always has been, 'Pages from Ceefax', never 'CLOSE'. Therefore, 'CLOSE' should remain a redirect. Billy H 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the edit summary to the self-appointed "Arbiteroftruth"'s latest edit?

"I have provided evidence. 4-Tel On View and ITV Nightscreen have their own pages, this deserves no less. Fouroffour is denying clear and present evidence. Lock requested."

"Lock requested"!!!

At no stage did I deny the facts stated; Arbiteroftruth is blatantly lying, and has not bothered properly responding here. (See this comment- not in the current page- for what I thought of this). He is (I believe) attempting to present an opinion dispute as a factual one, although I am still trying to figure out whether his major issue is (a) Whether the service warrants a separate page (opinion) or (b) That it has been disputed that the name is "CLOSE" (factual matter).

It's notable that he has still provided no evidence that the service is named "CLOSE".

Until he does, this will be redirected.

(Oh yeah, and one other thing. I can't believe I'm having an argument about "Pages from Ceefax". Sad, or what?!)

Fourohfour 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this matter is now closed (no pun intended....) Fourohfour 10:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the 'CLOSE' article

And yes, that was two years ago or so and I did know that starting an article about 'CLOSE' as though it were a real TV programme was misinformation but hey, I liked fooling people then...--HisSpaceResearch 15:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]