Jump to content

Talk:Channel 5 (British TV channel)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Name change

According to [1], which is Richard Desmond's own newspaper, the channel is going to be re-rebranded as "Channel 5" again. Should the article be renamed, or will it be best to wait until it changes onscreen? Bob talk 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My vote would be to wait for the usual test - how the station is named on its website, on screen and in listings. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The page should be renamed as Channel Five as Richard desmond insists here: "http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188853/Channel-5-Great-new-era-for-British-television Starting with the name. From today the rather vague “Five” (five what? Days of the week? Fingers?) reverts to the much more informative ­ Channel 5. In an era of mass catering for minorities and niche interests ­clarity is a much undervalued commodity that Mr Desmond is determined to bring back to broadcasting., Five.tv website header shows Channel Five which was previously Five." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.151.146 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

According to [2], the channel is to be 'Channel 5' not 'Channel Five'. Should the article be renamed?' --AntL (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be mixed when referring to numbers, a more recent article lists 'Channel Five' but mixed here. I suggest leaving the article as it is, until further details are announced, besides the current logo uses 'Five'. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's Channel 5 so that should be the title.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Aah, something I forgot to add www.five.tv lists "News, entertainment, sport and drama from Channel Five at Five.tv". -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seems pretty clear from this, the article should be moved to Channel 5.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, the announcers now use 'Channel 5'... well it is for now (it might get yet another name from Desmond if the ratings don't go up!). It won't be Channel Five.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

Having seen this article been moved so many times without any discussion or rationale, I am going to start discussion (now that another "move" of the article has been fixed), add a tag to the article and hopefully start to reach consensus on the title with references and citations to show the correct name of the article so that I don't see another "move" happen in the future and I don't have to tag the article again to get it fixed. Hopefully this won't turn into another discussion like ITV vs ITV1. --tgheretford (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be officially "Channel 5" from January as the new logo confirms. That's until Desmond gets bored and sells out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.81.31 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As of 2nd December 2010, there has been no announcements - press wise, of the above name change taking place. Given that people have said "it is changing" over such a long period, I think the idea has been dropped. --Keith 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's now official, Channel 5 new look and logo to go live (but not from Studio Five) on 14 February 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Valentines Day - The dates been changed, but you still quote the article that said January 2011 !?!?!? ..... and where did the "so called new" logo come from - someones photoshop?? Whats gonna happen to the stations web presence - that going to be revamped, YET AGAIN, to refledt the name change?? --Keith 10:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

American sports coverage confusion

The basketball section has a couple of problems, and I don't have the correct information at hand to fix them. Specifically:

[Basketball coverage] generally follows the model of Five's NHL coverage, a single midweek game either live or on short-delay, plus a review of the previous week's action. The coverage of both sports has included forays into the NCAA scene, notably the Rose Bowl and the NCAA Basketball Tournament, even the Final Four.

After mentioning the NHL (professional ice hockey), the text says that coverage of "both sports" has included forays into the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association). "Both sports," is logically taken to mean basketball and hockey. However, this cannot be the case — collegiate hockey is not even nationally televised in the U.S.

Regarding the NCAA coverage, the text then refers specifically to the Rose Bowl, the NCAA Basketball Tournament and the Final Four. At this point, I as the reader deduced that "both sports" was supposed to mean basketball and American football: the Rose Bowl is one of college football's Bowl Championship Series games. The NCAA Basketball Tournament is exactly what it sounds like, and the Final Four is just the television networks' promotional title for the semifinal and final games of that tournament.

So why don't I just correct it? Because of the sentence that comes immediately after the previous quote:

Currently, ESPN America broadcasts many of the college sports.

Wait, wait... so, are the college sports that were just mentioned broadcast on Five, or on ESPN America? Why are we even talking about ESPN America, if this is the article about Channel Five? I'm over here in the U.S., so I have no idea. JustDerek (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It didnt take too much to decipher what was relevant and what wasnt - a 2 minute read, and extrenuous material has been removed. References to the Final Four is ambiguous given what that particular link relates to --Keith 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added the new logo as this is the likely on-screen look from February 2011 and used in Desmond's publications promoting his shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be used in adverts, but currently the logo has not been adapted yet, wait until the 14 February then it can be changed. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The new logo is already "live" in the Express adverts so it should now be at the top of the article as it will be going live from Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, until it appears onscreen we need to keep the current logo. Adverts are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.213.15 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The new logo should now be on here at the top as it has been officially published for many weeks now. Get set for the change, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for getting set for change but for showing current information. Someone looking for an article on channel 5 may not realise that is the correct article as they may not recognise the new logo. When it is used on television then it should be updated. Also this new logo that keeps getting used is wrong. There are no gradients in the new Channel 5 logo. 92.7.213.15 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, we'll agree to wait for the official on-screen look to appear after 14th and revert the premature edits as they come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Channel 5 relaunch

The Channel 5 new look went live this morning with a new 5 ident in a white circle. Can somebody update with the actual, new logo as the pre-publicity version is not accurate. New website channel5.com. Official launch 12.40pm today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

5 News why removed?

Who on earth deleted the newly updated 5 News section? What is the point of adding information here if it is just deleted on a whim? Put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted so that the History can be moved with the article, the text on the article was copy and pasted to it. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now a decent image of the new 5News logo would be handy. It's like the main C5 logo with NEWS across the 5.

5 Idents

I have tried to add a section on the new range of 5 idents but Pointer1, a serial reverter, has taken it on themself to remove it. This section was added in good faith and should not have been reverted. Help! Stop Pointer1's reverting, now!

Cult Shows

I suggest a section with the above title; shows with a cult following or attempts at such - especially niche ones - were a very strong feature of the pre-2000 programming - but in today's skim read neither Xena and Hercules; Robot Wars; Fort Boyard; Saturday Night Fever or House Doctor registered as in the article - these are all notable programmes from the days of peak viewing figures! (the tildes on my laptop have ceased to work-honest - bot oblige!) User:Kathybramley Thu 8 Sep 8:56am — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathybramley (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

recent/new add text

forgot to login, will do now. 31.52.3.10 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) = vcorani logged in :) - VC 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

Audience Share

The (as far as I can see) unreferenced graph in the audience share section has a massive spike in the first quarter. Surely this is a noteworthy spike (if correct), but I can't find out why it would have such a large share in that week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Channel_5_(British_TV_channel)/Archive_3&oldid=1154196354"