Talk:BBC Three

The article says:

Launched on February 9, 2003

Is this when BBC Choice was 'originally launched, or when it changed to BBC Three? --Phil 17:58, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Belated answer: when it changed to BBC Three. Lee M 03:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "Availability" sidebar lists "Terrestrial (PAL I standard)" which implies the channel is available on analogue terrestrial. This is untrue.

The article reads: "It has been noted though that the BBC Three blobs are basically another form of the blob-like characters that are the main feature of both CBeebies and CBBC." However, there is no link between the BBC Three ident characters and those used by the BBC's two children's idents. They were designed by different agencies, commissioned by different people and the likeliness is a mere coincidence (and proof that new ideas are thin in TV!) Pickup Stix

http://biffovision.blogspot.com/2007/06/nobody-died.html http://www.boardofppl.com/viewtopic.php?t=859&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

According to this TV insider ('Mr' Biffo), BBC3 is looking to change it's target audience. Should this be included in the article, or is it too much like conjecture for Wiki's high standard? 130.88.199.180 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebrand info

I have added info about the 2008 rebrand, including new shows commisioned and how the audience will be affected.

Any queries discuss on my page. --Mark Macmillan™ (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be discussed here, that's what this page is for. For reference:

2008 Rebrand

There are currently rumours circulating about a rebrand for the channel in 2008. This includes a redesign of the current logo and a rebrand of its programming output. It may mean that the current target audience of the station will be affected.

New shows commissioned include a variety show based on social networking, hosted by Lily Allen , a series of "hard-hitting" documentaries aimed at a young audience and a six-part drama series called Being Human .

The channel's new style has been compared to that of E4.

More information can be found here.

Starting this section off with "There are currently rumours..." is not good. It implies that they are, indeed, rumours, and per WP:CBALL appart from all else Wikipedia is not for rumours. Taking a glance at the above sources I can't find any that state as solid fact that a rebrand is on it's way, except the fact that the BBC site cited has a different CI, so I've removed the section for now, pending the citation of more solid sources, and a reword. _TheIslander 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just noticed that BBC3 was changing due to news on the Enter Three TV minisite and adverts across BBC networks. I have tried to provide sources as best I could, but I am aware that articles cannot be written on rumours. Possibly the new shows comissioned (2nd paragraph) could be incorporated elsewhere as I have used references from a reputable source (BBC press office)?

Cheers, --Mark Macmillan™ (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC Three re-launch at 7pm

I have just looked at the website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree and its currently under construction. So after 5 years and 3 days, BBC Three gets a new facelift :-D Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

and it's look bad... 222.124.19.20 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

The article currently reads like a BBC press release, taking the BBC's side on issues such as viewership.

There's nothing here about the criticism BBC Three has received, e.g. the discussions about whether the channel should be axed because of its costs, narrow target audience, low viewing figures or for other reasons [1] [2] [3]. Veteran BBC reporter John Humphrys is a particularly vocal critic, arguing that core programming is suffering due to the costs incurred by niche channels such as BBC Three and Four, which only "six men and a dog" watch.

This article is supposed to provide an unbiased account of BBC Three, not make the case for the channel's continued existence via reference to Torchwood's "impressive" viewing figures and suchlike. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought it was a bit odd that there were no counterpoints. I'll work the first two in (the third link is a news item about Tibet... oops). SynergyBlades (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)