Talk:Channel 4/Archive 1

message: To make clear, "Channel 4" is not the name of simply the channel which operates on four, it is in fact the name of the company and part of its specific brand. This ties into its other promotions like  the T4 show and the E4 and More 4 channels. Unlike, say, CNN or FOX, which may operate consistently on the channel, it is not part of their actual name and brand.
Put simply, there's nothing else you can call it. Channel 4, as a company, exists and is worthy of a Wikipedia entry.
=== To whoever wrote the above text ===
I'm sure that if you really want the Americans to see the above text, you're going to have to alter it in a way so that the TOC will appear below it and above the next header, which I don't see a way it can be done. Georgia guy 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Americans 

message: I'm sure that if you really want the Americans to see the above text, you're going to have to alter it in a way so that the TOC will appear below it and above the next header, which I don't see a way it can be done. Georgia guy 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To whoever wrote the above text 

message: True or false: this network really is on Channel 4 on all U.K. televisions. 66.32.244.69 02:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends what you mean by "really on channel 4". In terms of nominal UHF channel, it's not possible, because UK channels are numbered from 21 to 68. Most televisions will have Channel 4 on preset button 4 of their tuner. On the other hand, my digital cable box has presets starting at 100, with Channel 4 on 104. Does that help? --rbrwrˆ 06:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false?? 

message: Can this be extrapolated?? According to what Wikipedia says, ITV is preset button 3 and Five is 5. I believe BBC is 2 and Sky Broadcasting is 6. Can anyone complete this??
# ___
# BBC
# ITV
# Channel 4
# Five
# Sky Broadcasting
# ___
# ___
# ___
# ___
# ___
# ___
# ___
66.245.105.195 01:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: nope, S4C2 is on 13, but only in Wales. There is speculation on the net that S4C2 (which primarly shows news from the Welsh Assembly), will move to 47 with the other current affairs leaving 13 free for ITV3 (to launch Nov 1) or possibly More4 (early 2005) MrWeeble 16:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrapolation 

message: (from WP:RM)
===Channel Four → Channel Four Television===
* There is a debate mentioned at Talk:Channel 4 on which of these titles is better. 66.32.249.42 02:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at least redirect Channel Four Television Corporation to Channel 4/Channel Four/Channel Four Television. Thelb4 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: * There is a debate mentioned at Talk:Channel 4 on which of these titles is better. 66.32.249.42 02:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at least redirect Channel Four Television Corporation to Channel 4/Channel Four/Channel Four Television. Thelb4 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Channel Four]] → [[Channel Four Television]]

message: Channel 4 is a publicly owned coporation, not a non-profit making organisation.  For more information see the 2003 annual report.  In 2002 the group profit before tax and restructuring costs for the year was £33 million
JB --62.255.64.5
:Yes, I think you have expressed it more clearly and correctly than I did. C4 does exist to make a profit, even though the profits are all kept as increased net assets and not paid out as dividend to shareholders. Indeed, the 31 December 2003 balance sheet shows no share capital at all, and the net assets exactly equal the accumulated P&L. Nobody takes any profit away from C4. I think it would be wrong to describe it as a "private firm" as this article once did. --rbrwr± 12:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private firm / Non-Profit 

message: I don't think this particular promo has ever been shown on TV except as part of a documentary. Anyone know different? --Bonalaw
I don't know, but I wonder when in the day that would have gotten played. It's stuff like that that makes me greatful that I don't have to watch American TV. I mean, that would probably close an American (apart from HBO, probably) channel down... Perks July 8, 2005 12:32 (UTC)
:Pretty sure I've seen it on telly. Would have been after the watershed. MrWeeble 8 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)
::No it has not been shown on TV, except as part of a documentary about taboos. This was confirmed on the documentary, and it has not been shown since the documentary. It definately will not be shown because some of them say cunt which as the documentary said, is the worst swear word. Borb 21:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that statement, since I recall having seen that several times - typically during early morning.  Don't remember seeing it much before midnight though, but I definitely have seen it.  I distinctly remember "buggeration", Twicenightly's "slobknocks" (or something similar) and one of the guys from Scrubs launching into a tirade, ending in something like "bitch ... head".  I would try watching the link, but it's just not working for me.  Chris talk back 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably withdrawn rather swiftly then. Was it ever shown in cinemas? I think that was the original idea for that particular promo. Incidentally, the word Richard Whiteley said was "Sloblock". It comes from a Fry & Laurie sketch sending up Countdown in which the selection on the letters board reads BOLLOCSK (sic, and yes, it's only eight letters). -Bonalaw 09:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now been able to watch the whole thing, it seems longer.  Perhaps it was a trimmed-down version that was used on-air. Chris talk back 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Favourite swear words promo

message: In the first paragraph of this article, it says "Channel 4 is a public service television broadcaster" ... "Unlike the nation's long established public service broadcaster, the BBC, it does not receive public funding." However, the linked Public broadcasting is defined as "receives funding from the public." So apparently, a channel has to recieve public money to be a public service, making C4 not a public service broadcaster.
Seems conflicting - can Channel 4 indeed be referred to as "public service broadcaster" and if so, can anyone make the meaning clearer on either article?
-- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Public service television broadcaster" is a jargon phrase used by the regulator Ofcom to refer to a variety of UK broadcasters, in as much as they provide services that are a public service above and beyond what might be cost-effective or demanded by the market. The BBC (which is publicly owned and funded) has the widest range of public service broadcasting commitments; Channel 4 (publicly owned but advertising funded) has a special remit to innovate and cater to diverse audiences; The entirely commercial organisations Channel3 (ITV) and Channel 5 (five) have PSB commitments to provide news and commision original British programming and are also considered to be part of the PSB landscape. so it seems that "public service broadcaster" and "public broadcasting" are not necessarily the same thing. Ofcom has been going through a review of all this and how it will play out in the digital multichannel world after the scarcity of analogue bandwidth ceases to be a factor (Ofcom PDF). See also About Channel 4. --rbrwr± 23:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Channel 4 has met and continues to meet the definition of "public service" ever since the IBA decided to dump the ITV Schools strand into a then-unused 3-hour block in the mornings (bizarrely, staring at 9.25 - when the ITV companies would pick up the handover from TV-am.  There was probably some arcane reason for choosing that particular time to start ...  Anyway, Channel 4 still broadcasts schools programming from 9-12 during the school term. Chris talk back 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All six analogue stations are considered as Public Service Broadcasters, BBC, Channel 3 (ITVplc, SMG, UTVplc & Channel TV), Channel 4, S4C and Five. They all have to broadcast, say a specific number of hours of news and current affairs or local output (BBC and ITV). As for Channel 4 (and S4C) it gets money indirectly, I believe it does not have to pay for its transmission (excluding digital channels; E4, FilmFour, More4). :: Keith :: 16:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Service Broadcasting 

message: The sentence "E4, a digital entertainment channel previously available on the Internet" needs explaining. Since E4 launched in 2001, I assume that E4 wasn't a download or catch-up service, as these didn't really exist at the time.
Fourohfour 12:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was some sort of service like FourDocs, it was available on the intenret before it started broadcasting in its current state. :: Keith :: 12:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "E4, a digital entertainment channel previously available on the Internet" 

message: We can get a hundred channels with our Satelite dish and "Nokia mediamaster 9740" from France but fail to get Channel 4 and all the other "4" channels (and five which we would quite like too). These channels are actually on our list of "All TV" but not on "free tv". I don't understand it at all.
Does anyone have any suggestions or explanations? 193.249.29.96 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel Four, More4 etc are Free to view but not Free to Air, you need to have a card from BSkyB in order to access it, these cards are used to ensure you get the right BBC One, BBC Two ITV,  and Channel 4 region. (All BBC and, I think, ITV channels are broadcast Free to Air) Keith 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, E4 and More4 are only available as part of a pay-tv package on Sky due to the terms of Channel 4's contract with BSkyB, even though they are FTA on DTT. It is expected that when the contract for conditional access expires in October 2008, then Channel 4 will broadcast these channels FTA. This is, as I recall, pretty much what happened with BBC and ITV when they went FTV to FTA. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone help me get channel 4? 

message: Isn't there also a dedicated Irish Cable region. If not - Ireland seems to almost totally dominate the North, Scotland and Northern Ireland regions adverts... I can't actually check now as I'm pulling down the London region off digital satellite and don't have cable here anymore. --Kiand 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone wanting to see the discussion regarding the cleanup of the aforementioned section, it is at the bottom of the page under the same title. --tgheretford (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising regions 

message: The logo should be C4_logo_cutout.png, which follows the guidelines for the logo. Channel4proper.png has a white background, which on the pink background looks like it's in a "box", which is forbidden.
User:BriantistIt is "forbidden" by the specifications for replicating the logo on paper, not for on-screen display.  Can I suggest that you actually watch the channel and visit the website?   Also,  C4_logo_cutout.png is terrible resolution, and I am sure this is forbidden by the channel 4 corporate image.
:Those guidelines are for all versions of the logo - including on screen/the website. You will notice it is never in a box (which putting in a white background is doing). If you think it is bad resoution, then please feel free to get a better resolution copy, which follows the no-background guidelines. -- 9cds(talk) 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a point, though - Internet Explorer is the most widely used browser around. The majority of people looking at this page, including me, only see a black rectangle. BillyH 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted back to the transparent one until someone can fix it. --AntzUK  01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Used pngquant to reduce number of indexed colours, this fixes the weird black background display on IE6 and less, though the alpha dithering is still broken on IE6-. Should look no different on Firefox and other agents that can handle PNG. Roll on IE7... MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this would indeed solve whatever problems Briantist is getting; whatever they are (although I can't see why this would break the logo too much; but I've not seen it myself). I'm not at a computer with the right software installed to create a transparent GIF, but if you would like to do it yourself, all that is needed is a non-alpha transparent GIF. -- 9cds(talk) 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cant put it on the page cause its protected, but it seems to work in IE. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to work in Safari in MacOS, it's now up to Briantist to request the page gets unprotected again, I think.  -- 9cds(talk) 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo 

message: For crying out loud! Stop this edit war!!!!!!!!!. Thank you for listening, I haven't blocked any of you for the 3RR. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For crying out loud

message: Jiminy crow, stop edit warring! Work out your differences here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Should this article not be at the more accurate Channel 4 News (UK), I mentioned this on the talk page of the Channel 4 News (Britain) article a while ago, but got no reply. I think it was the same guy who wanted a Channel 4 (Britain) article. Any thoughts? - theKeith  17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be moved. -- 9cds(talk) 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The move was proposed and it was decided to stay where it is (See Above). "Channel 4" is the name of a company, and it is not necessary to list companies with their country prefixed onto the back of the article name - e.g. "Coke USA", "BP UK". --UkNews 19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time I brought this up Channel 4 News was at Channel 4 News (Britain). It was initially moved by the same person who wants to move Channel 4 because of other local US channels using the name occasionally. theKeith  19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occasionally and illegally, as their only recognised name is their callsign. Which is Wxx(x)(-xx) or Kxx(x)(-xx). This Channel 4 is the only channel CALLED Channel 4. --Kiand 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegally? Nope, a TV station can use any name it wants to, whereas callsigns only need to be used for official IDs -- nothing else. WorldWide Update 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel 4 News (Britain) 

message: The Comic Strip Presents, a highly innovative series of hour-long one-off comedies...
Removing hour-long. The programmes occupied a half-four slot, including commercials (i.e., ran for under 30 minutes) until the third series, when (info. from the Wp article: The Comic Strip Presents) "some episodes were allowed longer running times". -- Picapica 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Comic Strip Presents 

message: On the page it lists it as being on channel 104, but for me, that is Bravo. As I understand it, NTL has 2 sets of channel numbers, I'm not sure why, or who gets what, but I think it should be listed as 4 / 104 or something (4 being the number it is on my NTL box).
:Indeed, it's 4 here too (and 104 for Bravo). The usual practice is to do what you described, 4/104. BillyH 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, its 104 on the Langley platform and 4 on the Bromley platform. I'll edit it. Sonic 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NTL's channel numbers have been adjusted so that they are the same on both platforms and I made this change yesterday. - Lee Stanley 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel number on NTL 

message: Where are all the citations for this article? There are only 2 links in the references section. --Lorian 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether what is written requires verification under Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you dispute anything within the article, you should bring it up on this talk page and add the relevant dispute template into the article (found here). If you do think a lot of the article has not been verified and is not reliable, add the  tag to the article, although the  template may be more appropiate. This page may also be of help: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sonic 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Channel 4 Showed 'WWF Heat' And Pay per views, wrestlemaina 16 and the 2000 royal rumble live at 1am on about the last sunday of the month in early 2000 to about 2002 these were even talked about on raw program on sky sports 1. 
Does any one know why this stoped?
Somebody told me it had to do with the may young thing in the 2000 royal rumble were she flashed her breasts, but i have my doubts.
:: Because people don't watch wrestling anymore? Lee Stanley 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? Channel 4 is not famed for being the prude channel. I don't think they'd lose much sleep over someone flashing their breasts in the middle of the night. I would guess it has to do with wrestling enjoying a period of popularity in the UK a few years ago before returning to its previous standing whereby C4 would be less enthusiastic about devoting a slot of several hours to it. 12:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I highly doubt C4 cared about a flash of breasts, real or not, in the middle of the night when they show documentaries about guys with penises full of silicone at 10 PM. Diabolical 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling 

message: The current wording is a bit ambiguous. I'd fix it, but I don't know about Channel 4 enough. It looks as though the six avertising regions are only five: 1: London & the South East; 2: the South West; 3: Birmingham; 4: the North and N. Ireland; 5: the East and East Midlands. Is the missing sixth one Wales (as far as I can tell from the map) or has someone worded this wrong? ZanderSchubert 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a clean-up tag there because the diagram really does need explaining much better from someone who does know how the regions work. I know a bit about it but I can't explain it properly myself! --tgheretford (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to ZanderSchubert the 6th region is Wales, it can be confusing having the magenta and red lines so close together. --tgheretford (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising regions 

message: Is it worth including mention of 124 Facilites in this article, the studio and post-production facility at the Channel 4 building at 124 Horseferry Road? I'm not sure if it's a subisidary company of Channel 4, or just an operating name. AWO 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  124 Facilities? 

message: For those with historical interests, I have created this website with a historical record of Channel 4 programs. 
Sunday, 31st December 2006
(schedule blanked by tgheretford (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to blank the schedule above because it is illegal under schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to publish a Channel 4 schedule without paying a royality to Broadcasting Dataservices. See here for more information: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Potential legal issue with UK Radio station schedules within articles. Better to be safe than sorry. --tgheretford (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel 4 historical programmes

message: What are people's thoughts on requesting this article to be made editable by registered users only for a month or so, until the vandalism stops happening? Also should this matter be included in the article? I think it's too trivial and irrelevant myself, but perhaps a 'controversy' section would be a useful feature. - Fursday 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be protected. I don't think it has any relevance to the channel to be honest, if anything then is should be on Endemol and the Big Brother pages, I think the additions to this page are mainly knee jerk reactions, possibly by people who wouldn't care about racism if it wasn't such a high profile case. A controversy section would need a page on it's own considering all the controversy the channel has caused since it was set-up. Diabolical 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the word 'nonsense' as this word makes the suggestion very subjective. Briantist 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C4 'profoundly regrets any offence' Briantist 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How DARE you remove comments from a talk page?  On what grounds? Briantist 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the grounds that it is not helping discuss changes to the Channel 4 article in question. Talk about soapboxes, you're branding a TV show and channel Nazi's on the grounds that a few people, who do not speak for the Channel and have no connection with the running & operation of the channel, made some rather nasty comments. I suggest you get pff you soapbox and stop trying to incite by creating images then trying to pass them off as relevant. Not to mention you edited comments yourself by changing the title.--Diabolical 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And Big Brother logo MINUS star PLUS swastica EQUALS "Big Brother Racism Row".  Please point me to where wikipedia's rules forbid it please, don't impose your own standards. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Briantist 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also suggest you don't automatically assume racism EQUALS Nazi, as it doesn't, and not to mention pointless.--Diabolical 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed: in terms of an encyclopaedic account of Channel spanning the last 25 years, I don't really think that this has much relevance, and my intention certainly wasn't to turn the talk page into a political dispute, with graphics etc., rather just a way to curb vandalism for a couple of weeks. I like the idea of a controversy section, though - c.f. The similar section on the Thames Television article and if anybody's willing to help build one, it could be quite a valuable contribution to the overall article, especially if you consider some of the more 'radical' output C4 put out during its formative years. Anybody interested, please start a new section in this talk page to discuss how it could be compiled. Fursday 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you live in the UK do you?  If you did you would apreciate how important this is to the future of the channel!  Briantist 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do live in the UK, and have done my entire life. I do 'apreciate' your concern, but I generally feel that this whole matter is of little importance to the channel, the industry at large or the greater populous - with the probable exception of those whose job it is to find content for the tabloid press over the next week or two. If you could present a reasonable argument as to why this would have any notable impact on any part of Channel 4's future, I would be intrigued to hear it. Fursday 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to limit the article to 'history' Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.  Briantist 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's Daily Mirror reports of racist comments by a contenstant on the pre-recorded C4 'reality TV' show Shipwrecked. Briantist 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancy graphics aside, (and incidentally, I don't really see what the Nazi party or their symbol have to do with Big Brother, but it seems to make you happy, so I'll let it lie) I don't really see how this particular story, which is likely to be completely forgotten about within a couple of months, has any place within the Channel 4 article, unless it's part of a greater catalogue of examples whereby Channel 4 output has caused public and/or media controversy. Like I say, I'd be quite welcome contributions towards building such a section, so any ideas, please put forward, folks. Fursday 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Brother Racism Nonsense

message: Please could editors not flag changes to the talk page or the main article as being a minor edit when it could potentially be the subject of a dispute. As the ibid policy states in particular: A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute and  [...] any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word. Fursday 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: Nobody's going to rest until this Big Brother racism issue is sorted out, so let's get on with it and make a start at a 'controversy' section that encompasses the last twenty-five years; that way we can include the matter in an appropriate context, and amongst other notable situations where the station has caused public/media/critical controversy.
I suggest we start with a list. Please edit the following list freely and when it's comprehensive enough we can develop it into a section:
=== Notable Controversies ===
Starting points:
* Investigative documentaries
** Quite a big list...
* Factual documentaries:
** first televised autopsy
* Themed evenings
** Pot Night
* Films:
** 'Banned' season of films, included first televised showing of (then) controversial programming such as Monty Python's Life of Brian
* Perenial Critics:
** Mary Whitehouse
** Tabloid Press - c.f. 'Channel Bore' campaign
* Sex/violence in programming:
** Red Triangle
** Queer as Folk
** Controversial Brookside storylines
* Reality TV:
** Numerous Big Brother controversies
* Dramas:
** Bush assignation drama
** David Blunkett drama
These are only the tip of the iceberg. All suggestions to further this greatly welcomed. Fursday 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Starting points:
* Investigative documentaries
** Quite a big list...
* Factual documentaries:
** first televised autopsy
* Themed evenings
** Pot Night
* Films:
** 'Banned' season of films, included first televised showing of (then) controversial programming such as Monty Python's Life of Brian
* Perenial Critics:
** Mary Whitehouse
** Tabloid Press - c.f. 'Channel Bore' campaign
* Sex/violence in programming:
** Red Triangle
** Queer as Folk
** Controversial Brookside storylines
* Reality TV:
** Numerous Big Brother controversies
* Dramas:
** Bush assignation drama
** David Blunkett drama
These are only the tip of the iceberg. All suggestions to further this greatly welcomed. Fursday 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Controversies 

message: While we're on the subject of merging, I fail to see how either of these two subjects justify articles within their own right, and think there is a very good case for merging them into here. Fursday 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I agree with the merger. Looking for the first time at these pages, it is hard to see why they cannot simply be added to Channel 4. Coolmark18 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not improve the articles instead of consolodating them? ••Briantist•• talk 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is precious little to expand in either of them. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could probably find about 30 different articles to split Channel 4 into, many of which are far more expandable than the two above I propose to merge, but the result would be absolute chaos and not in line with general Wikipedia thinking on the matter. Fursday 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly support this merger. The JPStalk to me 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge [[Channel 4 Friday Comedy]] and [[Channel4.com]] into this article

message: Somebody created 4Talent yesterday, as well as a section with the same name and pretty much identical content content in this article. As with the two above, the case for merging really speaks for itself. Fursday 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge [[4Talent]] into this article

message: User:Briantist has made a valid point that this article is lacking somewhat in references, though I think some areas are worse than others. We could also do with a bit of a tidy up too, especially in the history and programming sections, the latter of which is pretty messy now. 
As for references, if somebody fancies trailing through the Ofcom website, there'll no doubt be an awful lot of useful material relating to funding, channel 4 corporation and the remit (I introduced the much-needed extrapolation of the remit, fundamental to the whole article IMO, but I feel it needs expanding on further) and the broadcasting history site, Transdiffusion has a whole section dedicated to Channel 4, compiled a couple of years ago, which could be pretty useful for the history section and other parts.
It may be useful to move the reference tag to the specific sections that need attention to help make the task easier, and perhaps try and get a reference to the need for references put on the relevant wikiproject page. Fursday 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and a tidy-up