Talk:ITV Granada

Lancashire and Cumbria C‑class Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Greater Manchester Mid‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as High-importance).

ITV Granada received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

On 16 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to ITV North West of England. The result of the discussion was not moved.

ITV Granada

Whoever edited this page clearly has never watched Granada or hasn't taken much notice because "ITV Granada" did not exist in 2002. it was not until February 2004 when they started calling the station by that name. Even HTV which supposedly ceased to exist in 2002 still produced HTV News until 2004. Good attempt at trying to re-write history. 94.192.241.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Copied

This is so much like a TV website, Transdiffusion. Certain comments are identical.

I've checked and it's certainly not a direct copy of any Transdiffusion page. But then, Transdiffusion stuff is Creative Commons, so it wouldn't matter that much anyway. Perhaps any similarities are simply because this is a history piece on Granada - the facts are known, so any article listing them will resemble any other article listing them! Redvers 11:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brand identity

Is the sentence "if any child in the UK is asked "Where is Granada?" they will probably point to the home of Coronation Street rather than Spain," really true any more? I wouldn't have thought so in these days of one single ITV entity. Angmering 00:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not any more, the empire builders have managed to eradicate local identity out of most of the ITV regions, unfortunately. -- Arwel 02:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think I shall go ahead and remove the comment from the article. Angmering 11:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1968

It's not made clear exactly what territory Granada lost in 1968. PMA 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granada still exists

How long has this article been in past tense? Granada is still the official franchise holder for the North West. It still has productions under the Granada name, for other UK broadcasters (not ITV) and overseas. It more or less owns ITV as they made a reverse takeover of Carlton. It is the franchise holder for the North West, even though it is owned by ITV Plc, just like all the other franchises which are still liscensed under their old name. Marbles333 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change of Opening Paragraph

As I mentioned above, the opening paragraph makes it sound as if Granada no longer exists. Here is a suggestion I have come up with:

Granada Television is the British ITV (commercial television) contractor for the "Northwest England", 7 days a week, and has been since 1968. Previously it held the "North of England" weekday franchise from 1954 (broadcasting began on May 3, 1956) until 1968. Granada was the only one of the original four ITA franchisees from 1954 which survived as a franchise holder into the twenty-first century, until the merger of its parent company, Granada plc in 2004 into ITV plc (however Granada legally still exists). It had a strong reputation (along with Thames Television) of providing public-service programmes for ITV mixing drama, comedy and current affairs.

Marbles333 10:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slogans

I'm going to take out the "Slogans used" section, as the examples given weren't slogans, they were just the ITA/IBA mandated station announcements at the start and end of transmission. -- Arwel (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Granada use the slogan "Television Worth Watching" from 1992 to 1995. The slogan is shown in this ident -- Crypticlocker (talk)

Improving perspective about the region in the early years

Would it be worth adding, to gain a full perspective about the region from '56 to '68, where it is mentioned that Granada provided service weekdays, to state that ABC TV located in Didsbury provided the weekend service, and that they, when their franchise ended in '68, moved to London to start the franchise known as Thames Television? Unhban 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Unhban[reply]

Logo

Ahoy fellow pedants! Its two appearances in the article are claimed to date from the 1970s. This must be wrong, since it would then have included something like "Colour Production" at the bottom. Philip Cross 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would just be the end caption. What we have here is the company logo. That said, it shouldn't appear here twice, once in the infobox is quite enough. -- Arwel (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the image back to the earlier, 'real' version. Although it's not as clean, the mock-up looked a bit odd: the colours were too different, and the other elements just looked odd. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shake-up of this article

Am I right in saying the following sections should belong in the article Granada Ltd.?

G-Wizz
GSkyB
ITV Digital
Rebranding and merger (parts of, since it was Granada Plc not Granada Television that merged with Carlton Comms)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought those assets were more connected with the former Granada PLC company? /Marbles 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why deny them separate articles? If they get absorbed into a parent article, there is bound to be pressure towards trimming for "conciseness", which is a habit of Wikipedia that annoys me rather. I'd rather see MORE detail than swift summaries. Hardylane 00:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies that this article is tagged for poor style and no references. We can't back up a lot of the claims in the article. Its common sense that a lot of the information presented is true, though original research states that such information cannot be included, and all big claims as such must be cited from a reliable source. The article is much longer than it needs to be, and parts of those sections listed above should form part of the other article Granada Ltd. (which was Granada's parent company 1956-2004 as Granada Plc). A similar problem also lies with the article London Weekend Television. Conciseness is a policy of Wikipedia and therefore should be applied on this article, which reads more like an essay than anything else. Well I'm not imposing that these changes be applied immediately, hence why I've asked the community because some elements of those sections do belong in Granada Television over Granada Ltd. Anyhow, its open to discussion, all comments appreciated. /Marbles 10:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness for its own sake can sacrifice information. Granada , one of the UK's most successful and trusted organisatiosns, was a victim of terrible mismanagement in the late 90's, and within five years was reduced to a shell of its former self. Many of the details about this collapse were added by myself, as a result of my direct contact with the situation. Therefore MY additions are the reliable source. I've seen nothing on that article that is not the truth.

This mismanagement is a fundanmental part of the company's history and background must be given to explain why a previously successful and quality company found its branches sold off, closed and shelved. Also, I'm getting just a bit fed up about how singular persons can tag something for "poor style", when this is surely a subjective judgement that needs to be open for a group discussion, as in here. Hardylane 12:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granada

Companies House (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b1fb39872abe2a823dd86f54fb844ae0/compdetails) says Granada Television Ltd came into being in 1965 - wonder which part of Granada was the license holder between 1954-65? PMA 13:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Palace

I am disapointed that the article said nothing about the series of superb hour-long light entertainment shows from Studio 10 called Chelsea at Nine. These live shows, produced during the 1950s, featured many top artistes including Maria Callas and Ella Fitzgerald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.135.58 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Granada-tv-70logo.PNG

Image:Granada-tv-70logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granada doing productions for the BBC?

I just watched the BBC telefilm Ballet Shoes and was surprised to see the credit at the end that it was "A Granada Production for BBC Northern Ireland". That's like seeing CBS in the US airing a show produced for them by NBC. Does a new arrangement exist now? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$ [reply]

It's just a commercial relationship, Granada being commissioned to produce a programme for the BBC. University Challenge has been "A Granada Production for the BBC" ever since it was first broadcast on the BBC. -- Arwel (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local News

Granada closed its regional news center/studio at the Dock Traffic Office, Albert Dock at least three years ago. Now greatly downsized it has been relocated to the Liver Building. Likewise Granada TV closed its regional news centers in Chester and Blackburn in early 2005 leaving only newsrooms in Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster. From 1984 until 1999 all news bulletins and nightly news programes were made at the Albert Dock, Liverpool, whereas features and regional opt-out programmes were made in Manchester. It was only in a cost-cutting exercise in 1999 that the head newsroom was relocated to Manchester thus downgrading Liverpool to a regional newsroom. Therefore it's hard to see, with Granda's main North West newsroom on Merseyside (pre '99), how it was showing regional bias toward Manchester (PS Mersey TV's made these assertions during the bidding process for the North West Broadcast licence in 1993). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.134 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC) -- The article does not mention that Granada first opened a studio and news centre in Exchange Flags and that it was Roger Blyth who fronted news reports from that studio. There was also a series of current affairs and entertainment shows titled Exchange Flags which were recorded at that location. It was only later with the redevelopment of the Albert Dock, that Granada moved to the larger premises there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.187.251 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granada's sometimes awkward relationship with Liverpool needs to be expanded. For a start, there seems to be nothing about Granada's Liverpool operations before the Albert Dock studios were opened in 1986. I would assume they had some sort of newsgathering presence from the beginning. Also, when did they start making programmes from Exchange Flags? Was regional news or Granada Reports ever broadcast from there?

Other things to note are that the This Morning studio was separate from the Granda News/Tonight/Reports studio. The former was in part of the Collonades, whereas the later was in the Traffic Office building. The first to leave Liverpool was the main Granada Tonight programme. I always thought that this occurred in 1993 with the launch of a new look, seen as the previous look seemed to have a Liverpool backdrop (although this could've been fake) and the studio looked more or less the same for both Granada Tonight & Granada News (this needs confimration before inclusion). This Morning was next to go, moving to the South Bank in London from September 1996. I believe the Granada News bulletins remained at Liverpool until October 1998, when the news was revamped again. Shop! channel was launched in the Albert Dock studios almost immediately as the news left (that Novermber I think) and was perhaps the key reason for the news leaving in the first place. Shop! closed in 2002, but Granada kept the Traffic Office for newsgathering (which it had always done) until they finally vacated the building in July 2006. Since then, newsgathering has been done in office space in the Royal Liver Building.

A little-noticed thing about the Traffic Office building was the the sign Granada put on it originally read 'Granada TV News'. Around the time the news left, it was changed to 'Granada Television'. Since being sold to National Museums Liverpool, the sign has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.171.149 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "Granada - Manchester bias/over emphasis" is that there is little verifiable content on the issue that could actually go into the page to back up the argument. Personally, I did think there was a heavy emphasis on Granada production in Manchester, but it definitely wasn't bias (which I've always felt is a bizarre argument) as Sidney Bernstein wanted all production for Granada in one place, and he just happened to choose The Manchester Studios in Manchester. Granada Television didn't feel much need to move from Manchester post-1960 as their programmes were renowned as being some of the best the ITV franchisees produced and this continued into the 2000s, like they say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Like I say, if you can provide some articles (ideally from newspapers) on the issue then they can be added. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

Having a read through this article, i get the feeling that it is confusing and needs restructuring. Most of what is here is a history of the company, not saying that is bad because the history is important, but it should be in a history sub heading. I would also propose that a programmes section is added of all of Granada's fantastic programme. Also a section (or new article!) on the studio complex wouldn't be a bad idea. This elemets are already there, but is mixed in with the history. I would keep G Wizz and GskyB seperate, but maybe put them under the heading 'Other Ventures'.Rafmarham (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering creating a "Granada Television produced programmes" section with a select list of Granada's best and most famous programmes on this page. A page on the Granada Studios (or The Manchester Studios as they it is officially known) has finally been created last week. On the over-emphasis on history, I can understand what you saying, the page is very centred on Granada Television's history - the problem is that that is what Granada TV is, its half dead. All the other ITV franchisees produce nothing now, the only thing that keeps Granada Television "half alive" so to speak is its renowned status (for producing programmes like Coronation Street, World in Action etc.) and the fact the Granada Studios still do produce TV programmes (such as The Street and especially in conjunction with other production companies such as Red Production Company). Stevo1000 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granada ITV move

Was the move of Granada Television to Granada ITV really nescesairy? I think that the company is best known by far as Granada Television. The only people i have heard called Granada is Ofcom, who use it on their website so you can find their license. I think it was better where it was, and that the move to Granada ITV counter-productive. Just because Ofcom call HTV's region Wales and West ITV, doesnt mean the page should be called that - it is HTV, should always be, they are the license holder. Why should we change it depending on what Ofcom put? Rafmarham (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a silly move IMO, does not Wikipedia like to use WP:COMMONNAME? Unfortunately 'Granada ITV' is not what the station uses nor what ITV uses, I agree the most common name is 'Granada Television' with 'ITV Granada' coming second. I've moved it back until the original mover of the article can produce a 'move request' on this page, although I would still Oppose. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that most of the regions were transferred to the name 'ITV Broadcasting Limited', which is the 'licensee and provider of the regional Channel 3 service'. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded Warehouse Photo

"The warehouse next to Granada Studios where Granada house offices and produce some programmes such as Granada Reports[57]" This just isn't the case! I know there were talks about it, but the bonded warehouse is sealed up and never used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.58.169 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a reference stating that then fine. As it stands, there are a number of references from respected news sources such as the Manchester Evening News which state that Granada redeveloped the Bonded Warehouse to move out of the Granada House, which was described as a 1960s nightmare. Stevo1000 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I suppose working for ITV on the actual Granada Studios site doesn't count as a verifiable reference? 95.150.235.22 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, one's own personal experience is never a "reliable source". Frustrating, I know. Alarics (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

This article is rambling, repetitive and ... I am copyediting it to make it readable. Is there a reason why it can't be written in a simple summary style using the past tense? Is there a reason why exactly the same information appeared in The Manchester Studios? I haven't finished yet but I will unless somebody else wants to.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting slimmer but I still haven't got to the end. What should happen to the unreferenced list of programmes? Perhaps it should go.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thought, "less is more". I have never managed to read this article in one go, I still can't. Once something starts repeating itself I lose interest.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of programmes should go. Programmes are important, of course, but it would be better to have a section in prose with references.

There is a section if anybody gets that far down. Some could be added but there are just too many to mention them all. The List could with refs make an article but I think there's another similar one.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the list later if there are no objections.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Yorkshire Television - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?

I am hesitant in saying this but I think this article must at least be close to GA status. It is comprehensive with free images, lots of references and covers all areas of Granada's activities. If not GA then could the ratings from some of the projects please be updated. This is definitely not a Start article! Rafmarham (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ITV Granada. 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) 03:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ITV Granada. 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) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on ITV Granada. 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) 01:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox error

Look at the infobox, it's saying that Isle of Man was formerly Yorkshire! Someone needs to fix this otherwise it's just going to cause confusion! 92.17.186.77 (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "formerly Yorkshire" is a separate line in the list, indicating that the broadcast area formerly included Yorkshire. -- Dr Greg talk 12:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping ITV vandal

There is a persistent IP hopper who edits the end dates for ITV franchisees to 2004 when ITV plc was created. But LWT for example wasn't used in on-screen presentation in any way after October 2002, just production endcaps. Likewise Granada was called ITV1 Granada not "Granada Television" in onscreen presentation and regional idents. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

MediaCityUK aerial view April 2011.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Granada → ITV North West of England – Regional licenses now named geographically. https://cleanfeed.thetvroom.com/21066/opinion/news-of-itvs-regional-programme-obligations-and-identities/ Nylix4488 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - that may be the name of the franchise as defined by Ofocm, but this article is chiefly about the franchisee, which I believe is still broadcasting as ITV Granada, not ITV North West of England? Cnbrb (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cnbrb, plus is there a non-opinion source? May be too early if they haven't rebranded yet. Dank Jae 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.