Talk:2016 in British television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stephen Doughty resignation

I have re-added details of Stephen Doughty's resignation, which occurred on the 6 January edition of The Daily Politics, since there is now more to say on the matter. The information was originally added the day after it ahppened, but removed by someone else who did not feel it was a notable enough television event. The incident has since attracted criticism from the Labour Party, who have accused the BBC of bias. I therefore believe that, if it didn't meet the criteria before, it certainly does now. So I have reinstated it. However, as I was asked to begin a talk page discussion on whether or not to include this in the removing edit summary, I am happy to do so. Also, see the information as follows:

After Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn completes a minor shadow cabinet reshuffle, shadow defence minister Stephen Doughty announces his resignation live on an edition of The Daily Politics, citing his unhappiness at the sacking of a colleague.^[1]^[2] The BBC is subsequently forced to defend its decision to allow Doughty to resign on the programme after the party's leadership accuses it of pursuing a "particular political narrative".^[3]

References

^ Perraudin, Frances; Mason, Rowena (6 January 2016). "Three shadow ministers resign over Corbyn's 'dishonest' reshuffle". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
^ Dallon, Matt (6 January 2016). "Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle: Shadow minister Stephen Doughty quits live on TV". The Independent. Independent Print Limited. Retrieved 6 January 2016.
^ Watt, Nicholas; Sweney, Mark (8 January 2016). "BBC justifies decision to allow Stephen Doughty to resign live on Daily Politics". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 12 January 2016.

So, should we keep it? My own view is that it probably needs a copy edit, so feel free to do that, and obviously, any other thoughts on this are very welcome. Cheers This is Paul (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did oppose it when first added as it did not really seem that notable to television as it is more a political thing, lots of thing happen including announcements on live television most of them not notable. That said if others thing it should stay it could do with some editing, it seems to indicate that the BBC was behind him resigning and all they were doing is just reporting on an ongoing news story. In the end he didnt actually resign as I am sure that would require him to write a letter or some other party process he was just announced his intention to resign. Like most political reporting it is just todays newspaper story with no long lasting notability on television. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance in the next couple of days I'll edit this to make it more focused. I guess the criticism is the thing that makes it notable, rather than the fact he resigned. I am signed up the the MediaGuardian's daily briefing, so do have a tendency to add anything television-related that I think is significant, but hope this year not to create a monster like previous article. This is Paul (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Virgo incident

Per a request I am opening a discussion about the following entry, which has been challenged as non-notable. The entry, for 30 April, is as follows:

Snooker commentator John Virgo apologises after he is heard swearing during BBC One's afternoon coverage of the 2016 Snooker World Championship semi-final between Mark Selby and Marco Fu. Virgo had believed he was holding an off-air conversation at the time.

Another editor has asserted that the event is not notable enough for an entry here, although that could probably be said about the majority of entries on these pages. I guess it's all about what you think is and isn't notable. I have reinstated the event for now with a view to getting a wider opinion. I should add that the user concerned has made very few, if any, contributor to this topic, but has objected to a previous entry on similar grounds. This is Paul (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This just seemed to be a trivial event in 2016, agree in the 20th Century this would create a fuss but in 2016 a sports commentator accidentaly swearing on a sports programme has no notable effect on British Television. I dont think other entries have been challenged, perhaps I need to have a closer look! MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit below the belt of me actually, so I do apologise. There's probably an argument for reviewing all of this stuff, but it's a task that would need the collaboration of several people to decide what we should and shouldn't include. Perhaps it'll happen one day. I do wish more people would help out on these articles, beyond the ips who want to add erroneous stuff about the launch of fictitious television channels, or include the death of a very minor actor just because they happened to appear in an episode of Doctor Who thirty years ago. As I've mentioned elsewhere it's pretty much been left to my discretion to decide what's notable here for several years now, just because nobody else seems that bothered with keeping these pages up to date. If I go away on holiday or am otherwise indisposed then it doesn't get done. Whatever I do add, I do endeavour to find reliable sources for everything that goes in, and won't mention it if it's not appeared in a quality newspaper. I am generally able to do that. This is Paul (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not important enough to be included on 2016 World Snooker Championship, then it's not important enough to be included on this article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there's very little mention of the television coverage in that article anyway, so I wouldn't expect to find it there. I do notice, however, there is a reference to Steve Davis announcing his retirement, which I'll include here if I can find a good source. On a slightly different note (and something I've touched on already), as the research to add entries to this page often takes up to an hour of my time daily, I urge those who are unhappy with the content of this article (and others in the series) to contribute material themselves rather than complaining about what's already here. Perhaps we can also put together some rules as regards what should and should not be included. This is Paul (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone swearing on TV happens frequently. Unless someone's sacked, suspended or quits as a result - why would it be important enough to include here?

Why would retirements of sportspeople by included on this article, rather than on 2016 in sports? It's more of a sport issue than a TV one. Jim Michael (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you like to see here then? I think people should maybe stop whingeing about what is here, and start discussing the kind of things that should be included. The argument "why is something mentioned here rather than at X or Y" can be applied to many things in these pages. The idea of these articles is to deal with television related events, regardless of whether other stuff exists or not. This is Paul (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming Service

Should we be including programmes that are only streamed on BBC3 and the like , as they are not actually broadcast television as we know it? MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say only include them if they went on to appear on one of the other channels. Some BBC Three stuff does eventually get aired on late night BBC One or BBC Two, but not all of it. This is Paul (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 in British television. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314223017/http://www.familynotices24.co.uk/emh/view/4010320/drewe-henley to http://www.familynotices24.co.uk/emh/view/4010320/drewe-henley

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) 22:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2016 in British television. 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) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Perraudin, Frances; Mason, Rowena (6 January 2016). "Three shadow ministers resign over Corbyn's 'dishonest' reshuffle". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 7 January 2016.

[2] Dallon, Matt (6 January 2016). "Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle: Shadow minister Stephen Doughty quits live on TV". The Independent. Independent Print Limited. Retrieved 6 January 2016.

[3] Watt, Nicholas; Sweney, Mark (8 January 2016). "BBC justifies decision to allow Stephen Doughty to resign live on Daily Politics". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 12 January 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]