Jump to content

Talk:BBC Three

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Title?

[edit]

This is not a formal proposal just yet. I'm gathering opinions and ideas so that we can get the BBC Three articles in a position that keeps the historic and future incarnations of it in a coherent order.

Seeing as this article covers a period that ends in 2016 and that the streaming article covers the 2016 - 2022 period and also that the 2022 version of BBC Three looks like a given. I think renaming this article and the streaming article would bring a lot of clarity to things. I'm thinking along the following lines:

  • Rename BBC Three (this article) to BBC Three (2003 - 2016)
  • Rename BBC Three (streaming service) to BBC Three (2016 - 2022)
  • Make a new BBC Three to either cover the 2022 incarnation or as a disambiguation page.

All of the above is to bring clarity to the individual and distinct phases of the channel. Any opinions or alternative ideas? - X201 (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning agree Because i found that despite defunct channel, many users adding the new 2021 logo that actually used in streaming service and future channel, assuming that the channel will return in 2022. 36.77.95.70 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point creating a new article for BBC Three and naming it BBC Three (2022) TV Channel, it would not make sense whatsoever as all the other BBC Channels have only one page. 82.19.92.117 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with @82.19.92.117: and say that there should not be a new article for the upcoming BBC Three channel. I agree that it makes no sense when the other channels have one page, but I also want to add that I don't see any issue about an article that represents a channel that closed down and was "relaunched". When it comes to consistency: we in fact already have an example of such a case, Great! TV was formerly called Sony Channel which closed down in 2018 before it was relaunched in 2019. And in cases such as Sky Living and a plethora of other examples, we don't have separate articles for rebrands that are called "relaunches", so the case for having a separate article for a channel that gets relaunched with the same name and identity i.e. BBC Three is even weaker. --Jf81 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make My Body Younger

[edit]

Youve missed Make My Body Younger, the reality show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin89uy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Three logo colour

[edit]

Following the test broadcasts and the preview loop on Freeview, it is apparent that the colour of BBC Three is now going to be green, as opposed to the pink logo shown as the upcoming logo for BBC Three. I believe the logo should be changed to reflect the new logo colours. ProGamerSrijan (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the background not be made black? It would make the contrast much clearer - lime green on white (or off-white) is very hard on the eyes. – Dyolf87 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging BBC Three (streaming service) into BBC Three. Despite previous opposition at Talk:BBC Three/Archive 1#Merge?, I think this should be revisited. Asserting BBC Three as a separate streaming service between 2016 and 2022 is highly problematic, primarily that its existence within BBC iPlayer is apparent before and after these dates. The previous argument made that the streaming service article content does not fit easily into BBC Three appears false, as BBC Three#Replacement by Internet service is already a condensed version of its history section. BBC Three already prominently (and naturally) describes the streaming-only years as if the same channel as the broadcast iterations, and even contains information about the BBC One content block from 2019–2022 within its infobox. A separate article is confusing and misleading, and solves a problem that never existed. U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the case, otherwise, a separate page wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Speaking of that previous discussion, the reason this was shot down in the first place is because the streaming version of BBC3 was a separate entity from the television channel it initially replaced. Because its content was exclusive to BBC iPlayer, BBC3 & its programs were given separate on-air branding from the BBC's regular output across its linear channels.
"What other channels have separate articles for their online output vs their broadcast output?", asks Walt111 on 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The answer: Crave (TV network) & Crave (streaming service); which merged in 2018. They would have known this if they'd spent more time doing their research and " focus[ed] on making improvements" instead of "calling for deletion".
It's been two years since BBC3 was relaunched. If the articles were meant to be merged, they would have already merged. Thecleanerand (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The separation into two articles, with the benefit of hindsight and the increasing fluidity of television offerings, is arbitrary. The Crave case is not identical because, despite having taken the same name, they had independent histories that only later intersected. In this case, the streaming service only existed when the linear channel was shut down, and reuniting the articles neatly fills the gap. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason to separate these. They could easily be merged with no loss of understanding. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally prefer Support. But if the merged artical become too long, then I prefer a independent "History" page, to include the whole history.
Awdqmb (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BBC_Three&oldid=1244351020"