Talk:BBC Alba/Archive 1

Freeview controversy

Can someone please wright something about the freeview campaign or about how the tiny budget of £14m is compleatly inadequit for a channel that gets 600,000 viewers a week more than ten times the amount of scottish gaelic speakers in scotland and because it isnt on freeview it is only availbe to roughly a third of scots (i can site references).

This is extremly unfair of the BBC to deny this channel to the freeview audience but at the end of the day the BBC only care about england i guess. Ps: i dont expect anything to be written on the article about the BBC (*COUGH* EBC) being bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Launch

Has it been launched now? J-C V (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BBC Alba.gif

The image Image:BBC Alba.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The right for Gaelic Digital Service is BBC Alba as seen on Sky Digital on the BBC Alba test card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamhillwill (talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin

How does one reference a phonecall to Virgin and being told that they're "working on it"? Not sarcasm - I just don't have a clue what a ref like that would look like! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

firs you cant, second that aint relible people at companie often lie to get cusotmer to sign up or to stay.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to BBC Alba (TV channel)

It was copy-paste moved to BBC Alba (TV channel), and I have reverted this as a GFDL copyvio. If the consensus is to move to this new location, please feel free using the move function. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OpposeNo point meging it it is new serparate channel this not to do with with bbc alba it will jsut be broadcast from there

I'm confused - are you suggesting moving it to BBC Alba that it has come from there? Since none of the other BBC channels seem to have the (TV Channel), including S4C I'm not sure why BBC Alba needs to be graced with it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was clear from the article(s): BBC Scotland (ie the Scottish division of the BBC) has long used the brand BBC Alba as its Gaelic pseudonym, and the TV station BBC Alba is not technically a part of BBC Scotland. The article BBC Alba suggests that Eòrpa and Dé a-Nis? are still produced under this brand by BBC Scotland's production. I believe this is correct -- am I not right in saying that BBC Alba (TV channel) has no production facilities bar (except maybe a news studio or two?) and that BBC Scotland still produces Gaelic programming.

Of course, the question remains as to whether having an entire article devoted to BBC Alba (ie BBC Scotland) is correct -- perhaps it would be better including moving the content from BBC Alba into the Gaelic section in the BBC Scotland article and using a header to disambiguate. In fact, as the BBC's BBC Alba doesn't exist in English, unlike this BBC Alba, it's definitely wrong to have that article in the first place. The only reason to retain BBC Alba would be to avoid an edit war with Gaelophobes on the BBC Scotland page.

Prof Wrong (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Fry

The reason I keep removing those counter-arguments about Fry's position is NOT because I agree with him but this is not a forum, so we can't just add stuff to an article because it's what we feel about a certain topic. I'd certainly like to see a counter-argument against Fry's rather ludicrous assertions but we really need to quote a source from somewhere. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

some details about Michael Fry and his attitudes and knowledge of the subject should be added as its important to know how much somebody knows what there talking about if there going to be cited in criticising it. If for instance, there is evidence that irish viewers have learned irish gaelic from watching football on TG 4, then this would be a useful source for demonstrating the lack of veracity in his statement.

If a column was written criticising the law by a non legal expert, after all, it would be relevant to point out their lack of knowledge or expertise in that field. Why not in regards to broad negative statements on linguistic policies? 92.235.167.172 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I half agree with the anonymous editor here. What is it about Michael Fry that makes his views notable here? Personally, I feel Fry's opinion should be replaced with a general criticism of the same nature, and his name removed to the footnotes. Prof Wrong (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add Fry's criticism and I can't think of anyone who regards him as a notable authority on the topic. I'd be quite happy to drop it altogether or replace it with some general comments/critiques from more relevant sources. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Should it not be added that based on the number of viewers it receives its THE CHESPEST TV CHANNEL IN THE UK. please look it uo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.229.218 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Freeview Criticism

I have removed the section on criticism supposedly levied on BCC Alba/BBC Trust regarding the Trust's move to make the channel available on Freeview. I have seen no such criticism in the media and can find no solid trace on the net. I suspect this is a subject/emotive view added by someone who has those concerns themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibhidh alba (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, I've added a ref from the BBC. I'm sure there's more but that should do for now. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Football

Looking for some football to watch on television last night I managed to find the Hearts-Kilmarnock match, and wondered what language the commentaary was in. Yes, it was Gaelic. The chants and the interviews were, of course, in English. Something similar happens in Ireland where although the purists will tell you that football (soccer) is a "foreign game", RTE covers some matches with Gaelic commentaries. The argument is that Gaelic should be seen as a living language for ordinary people, and not confined to "schoolteachers in the west". Whatever the merits of such arguments, I am sure not only that nobody watching last night's game could not understand English, but could understand Gaelic, but also that in any event very few of the audience could speak any Gaelic at all. In these times of economic difficulties, is this a justifiable use of public money? Poshseagull (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remember Wikipedia isn't a forum. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly!The fact that I will only watch anything to do with football if its in Gaelic as I have no interest in it is irrelevant to Wikipedia Talk pages, as is the opinion of anyone else. Well said Ackerbeltz. Seamusalba (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Funding inconsistencies?

In the funding section the BBC contribution (and therefore license fee contribution) is described as:

"The BBC contributes an additional £2.5 million to the station."

and notes that it does not include distribution costs. In the next section it is said that the channel "does not justify the £15m of licence payers’ money spent on the digital television channel". Are distribution costs really £12.5m or are there some incorrect figures here somewhere? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 03:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)