Talk:BBC America/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

BBC AMERICA HD

Will be availble soon, it is mentioned on the website, also what happened to Hotel Babylon? It was supposted to return for season/series 3 in May 2009 now it is take off the schedule? --Cooly123 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sign up for the BBC America Facebook page - they indicate Babylon will return later this year Thejohansenfamily (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found information that HD is coming to much of the east coast with comcast cable some time soon. I will post information when i can format it.--Cooly123 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Untitled

Is it really right to describe Footballer's Wives as "wildly popular." Wildly does not seem a very....wiki word to me.

I'm not sure it's right to describe Footballers Wives as anything other than garbage, why the hell do they air the thing at all, it's a bloody ITV programme! --80.6.85.54 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Despite the comment about news running commercial-free, there is now sometimes one small (about one or two minute) break during the broadcast.


Do they really show the 'cherry-picked... highlights'? I thought it was all gardening and interior decoration programmes and other MOR stuff adamsan 21:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
At nighttime it's much better. I'll rephrase. Mike H 13:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

"ad breaks are slotted in at regular times, regardless of what's happening"

The philosophy in the UK is (or was) that breaks should occur at "natural breaks" in the action, ie at the end of a scene or on a dramatic climax. This also applies to imported shows, where breaks aren't always placed at the original points. I haven't seen BBC America, but if it follows that rule then commercial placement is not as random or arbitrary as the phrase "regardless of what's happening" would suggest. Comments? Lee M 13:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've now seen BBC America during a visit to the States, and I would just like to say I thought it was a fucking horrible mess that isn't worthy of the name BBC. Lee M 22:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a British expat living in the US, I'd tend to agree. It's a pile of steaming cack. But that's hardly NPOV ;) BrianDuff 06:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It could be mentioned that "many regular viewers of the BBC's UK channels feel the channel is not representative of them (or British TV in general). This is because..."matturn 14:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, and so would the Americans I know who've watched it and think it is a discredit to the BBC - BBC Prime is not much better, but at least in Europe you can pull in BBC1 and 2 with the right sized satellite dish! The BBC is almost ashamed of being British - if you watch Italian, Portuguese, Filipino, Indian and Korean channels in the US do they feel the need to pander to Joe Sixpack? Of course not.
Definitely agree, the channel is a pale shadow of what it could be if they just followed the same formats used on the UK based BBC channels (would it kill them to stop showing home improvement shows and Benny Hill re-runs?). Zerbey 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Article references BBC World's entry into the US. It has been available for a while. --SFTheWanderer 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where? It's not available on any of the major cable or sattelite services as a separate channel! Chilledsunshine 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Here, in the New York City area only. However, while I recieve BBC World, BBC America is absent from Cablevision's lineup. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has put a header as "How It's Run". Surely that's a bit informal for Wikipedia? I've changed it to "How It Is Run"--82.35.243.88 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Adult content?

Most of the non news programming is edited either for adult content or to allow for commercials. However, occasionally comedy programs run in specially formatted 40-minute blocks and a few first run drama programs in a longer block that allow them to run to their original broadcast length, though adult content is still edited.

Is this true? It's unreferenced and I can find no mention of it on the BBC America website. Even if it is true is 'adult content' the best term of description, given that the programmes will presumably have been broadcast unedited in the UK? Blakkandekka (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is true. The channel itself puts the info up as a title card at the start of programs as diverse Luther and The Graham Norton Show. Hopefully you are aware that BBC programs air without commercials in the UK. (If I had taken the time to read your user page I would have known that this sentence was not needed!) Thus, room has to be made for them when they are aired over here. This also means that programs like Luther, Dr Who and Life on Mars have commercials referring to so-called "Directors Cuts" that are available though the OnDemand menus of various cable/satellite systems. "Director's Cuts" in this case is a euphemism for scenes that we couldn't broadcast on regular cable or that we cut to jam a few more commercials minutes in. These "Director's Cuts" restore some scenes (though not all as in the case of LoM) that were cut from the original broadcast airings. Comparing the broadcast versions to the DVD releases of series like Torchwood also show significant edits for content. While the 40 minute block for comedies does not happen very often anymore it was common when BBC Am aired Ab Fab and Coupling, however, Luther is an example of the program length mention as it is being shown in a 75 minute block. Please be aware that the term edited for adult content can also refer to the pixelating of nudity which they have done more than once. The oddest one has to have been many years ago when they reran the very 1st episode of EastEnders and they pixelated the topless calendar that was on the back wall of the Queen Vic. The don't really have any reason to mention this on their website but I am sure that if you contacted them they would confirm the situation. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. I'll try and find out who gets the final say on editorial policy and get it into the article it it's appropriate. I wonder how much of this show (BBC America website) was left un-pixellated if they were using EastEnders as a baseline? Blakkandekka (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are not offended but when I clicked on the link that you provided I had to chuckle - it is just a wonderful item of irony all things considered (and yes there was a bit of pixilating going on). On a more serious note I think that what is and is not allowed changes over time - the EastEnders thing was more than a decade ago. More recently they still pixilate John Barrowman's rear end whenever they air the Doctor Who story "Bad Wolf". Cheers and thanks for making me smile. MarnetteD | Talk 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming Soon

Based on the fact that two items entered from the "Coming Soon" section of the BBC America website never aired {I removed them here [1] after they had been in the article for months) I do not think that we should be adding shows until a confirmed air date on their schedule. In order to not violate WP:CRYSTAL it would be a good idea to limit the "Programming" section to shows that are currently airing or ones that will be shown within the next month. MarnetteD | Talk 02:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BBC America is entirely owned by the BBC

I think someone mixed up this and this which was a joint partnership between BBC Worldwide and Discovery Communications and the wholly British-owned BBC America. Twobells (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is fine but the field in the infobox and the lede is about where the station broadcasts not who owns it. You are perfectly free - and it would be beneficial to the article of you mention that in the body of the text. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have had a go at adding your ref. If you want different wording plz change as you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 23:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Every other tv network article mentions the nation who owns it, here are a few examples 1 2 3 4 5 why shouldn't this article be the same, I don't understand, is this about the fact that's it is a British company and not American? if so that's inexcusable. Twobells (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a company. It's part of BBC Worldwide. BBC Worldwide is a British company, but I still don't think you can call this network 'British'. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your replies and for your work on improving the article. Twobells you will want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Aside from that all of your examples are stations that broadcast in the US which fits my earlier point in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Peabody Award

For the record it is the BBC World News America program that won the 2013 Peabody Award. It is the specific program that wins the award not the network that airs the program. MarnetteD|Talk 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Former shows

This article does not need a "former shows" section. The information does not enhance a readers understanding of the network. It also violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE among others. One other thing - as there are shows that leave the schedule and then return it would take constant monitoring to have a show in the correct section and that is not really possible. MarnetteD|Talk 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR does not apply to TV channels as all other channels has a list of current and former programming. Shows that "leave the schedule and then return" are called original programming in which the section is for and doesn't need constant monitoring. Not to mention you kept removing Almost Royal but not Orphan Black. According to you statement both would need to be removed from the article, which is idiotic seeing as Orphan Black has seemingly made more noise for BBCA than Doctor Who. Also former shows DOES enhance the understanding of the network, espically with the influx of original programming for the station that isn't coming from BBC. Until this discussion is over please leave the format as is and even expanding it as needed. Encmetalhead (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You can cover earlier programming in narrative. The list should be limited to programming currently being broadcast or possibly due to premiere in the next few weeks, such as Broadchurch. It's reasonable to leave Orphan Black because it's in and out of rotation fairly regularly, and they're advertising the new series. As for original programming, that is limited to programming explicitly described by BBC America as a BBC Original, such as with Orphan Black (where the BBC collaborates with the Canadian production company -- sorry, I don't recall the specifics) or Copper, which is their own original production. The trouble with a former programming list is simple: what goes on it? Recent programming? Classics? Most popular shows? There's no standard. Similarly, how much "noise" a show has made (and you're kidding yourself if you think Orphan Black has come anywhere close to Doctor Who) has no bearing on what goes in the article.
Related, please refrain from constant reverting. That can be viewed as edit warring. Policy is that once you're reverted, you leave the article at status quo (the stable version), and gain consensus for your additions. Similarly, WP:NOTDIR does apply to a laundry list of old programming under a label such as former programming. And recall that BBCA broadcasts Ramsay's programming under both its UK (Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) and US (Kitchen Nightmares) names; please don't remove Kitchen Nightmares. That said, I do think the discussion of original programming is badly out of date and needs a thorough rewrite, and there needs to be some mention of the network's increasing showing of films. --Drmargi (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No no, the list should cover every show that is possible to cover as each series played a role on that network. And to answer what goes on it, we can begin with recent/popular program and as time goes on the older programs will likely be added by others. If you profusely refuse to include former programming you must make the concession that all current programming, regardless if it's on schedule on not, should be allowed to stay on the article. Allowing just the shows on a one month or so schedule is not showing the complete picture of what the network is offering. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove Kitchen Nightmares, the UK was under current and the US was under syndicated as they should be. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The last time Almost Royal aired was when they aired a marathon several weeks ago and it is not on the upcoming schedule Orphan Black is. Also be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF in regards to what other channels article have in them. It is worth noting that some (to many) article list shows that were created to air on that network exclusively. That is only true of a handful of shows for BBCA. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Almost Royal has been renewed for a second season to air this year so it is still on the schedule. If you would scroll down after NOTDIR it also says the Wikipedia is not for current EPG/programming schedules so the "status quo" is in a gray area since you want to only include shows currently shown on the schedule (which the article doesn't even make note that the list only includes these shows). The most stable version is the version I had as it was the most correct and up to date. Completely removing Almost Royal is short sighted and basically removes the series from the history of the network in Wikipedia's eyes. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Being renewed does not guarantee that it will air and it is not on any announced schedule. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY the list should be kept to those that are airing. Having said that I have no objection to listing those that are going to air that have a reliably sourced announced date when it will begin airing. I still oppose any "past shows list" in this article as it would soon bloat it beyond all reason. If you want to deal with past programs you can work on sourcing this List of programs broadcast by BBC America and add it to a see also section at the bottom of this article. Please stop reverting this to your version until WP:CONSENSUS is reached here. MarnetteD|Talk 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/bbc-america-renews-comedy-almost-royal-for-season-2-1201370917/ Seeing as it's a BBCA original and not a licensed BBC show it will certainly air. Encmetalhead (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur; current and announced programming (such as Broadchurch, which is being heavily promoted) should be in the article. Shows that have been renewed, such as Almost Royal, can be noted in narrative, then listed when a premiere date is announced. Shows don't need to be carved up into all manner of WP:OR categories (how is the US Kitchen Nightmares syndicated, and the UK not?) just presented in a simple, easily read list form. As for old programming, a few notable programs, such as Copper can be discussed in narrative, but a compilation of old programming is not appropriate for the reasons MarnetteD has detailed. How many programs has BBC America run in its lifetime, and how do we determine how much of it or which programs should be listed? You're into fancruft territory now.
Please do not divide an editor's comments, then cut-and-paste their signature as you did with mine above. --Drmargi (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Because the US was/is first aired on Fox and BBCA has a syndication agreement to air it. The UK version is a first run deal for the US. If Fox showed both versions then both appeared on BBCA both would be syndicated. But you know what, if I'm going to get so much crap for trying to improve the article have the article your own way. I have more important stuff to do than to improve a wikipedia article that other editors don't want improved. Encmetalhead (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since BBCA has to pay rights fees for all the programs they air except for the ones that they co-produce almost all of the shows are syndicated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well rather than add a new post you refactored your old one. Not a good idea. I can only advise you to read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Discussions like this are not a win/lose situation. They are a part of the WP:CONSENSUS process. MarnetteD|Talk 01:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I offered a fair compromise of having all renewed shows included and you two still stood as only having shows on the schedule shown. At this point I've done the moving in the discussion while you guys maybe took a step. So at this point if I remove myself it's a consensus between you two. Encmetalhead (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BBC America. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Current consensus

This articles programme listing is for shows that are actually airing. That is why the section is labelled BBC America#Current. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BBC America. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC America. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

NEW Episode

Orphan Black 1.5 hr episode on my DVR NEW - A Memorable Trip. S5 3/30/18 @ 6:00-7:30 AM! BBCAHD

Looks like a BTS/REUNION ???

Please respond when you learn more. 

Jtydibble (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:BBC_America/Archive_2"