Talk:Channel 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

To the Americans

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)

Private firm

I removed "a private firm " from "Unlike the BBC, it is a private firm funded by advertising rather than the licence fee."

C4 is a statutory non-profit-making corporation and has been since 1990. Before that it was a subsidiary of the IBA/ITC. It is not a private firm, and has no shareholders. Privatisation has been discussed and (so far) put off, and it is possible that 4 Ventures which runs FilmFour, E4, attheraces etc. will be partly sold off in the future. --rbrwr

Note: ITC site could be useful for this page in the future --rbrwr

I've attempted to clarify C4's status as a hybrid between commercial and public service broadcasting; I think this article has been going down the wrong road on this since Lezek's edit of November 3. I'm open to other opinions, though. --rbrwr

Please move this page

How will anyone know that it is what it is and not a television channel in the United States that is designated as Channel 4?? Please move this page to Channel 4 (Britain)

Hm... the fact that the first line of this article says Channel 4 is a television broadcaster in the United Kingdom kind of gives it away really. FYI the United States is not the centre of the Universe. Mintguy (T) 01:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, there could be no possible Wikipedia article for "Channel 4 (United States)" that would make any coherent sense, because whether NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc. is on Channel 4 in a particular city varies across the country, so the only conceivable article for "Channel 4 in the US" would be a list of what (if any) network is carried on Channel 4 in various cities. In contrast, Channel 4 in the UK is a consistent, branded, important network of its own right, and deserves an entry without disambiguation. As Mintguy mentions too, the fact that it's a UK network is specifically mentioned in the first line of the article. Moncrief, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recently, someone created an article similar to the kind of list being talked about above, the only difference is being the channel number 6. Georgia guy 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, somebody thinks the UK is the centre of the world. Hundreds of millions of people have a channel four on their dial, and most don't get this station. It needs to be moved. Unless this is the first channel four on Earth, there's no reason to give it special status. More signficantly, it makes it easy for erroneous links to this article to be made. --Rob 08:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this old chestnut yet again. No, we don't think the UK is the centre of the world, however this channel, known as "Channel 4" is available to well over 60 million English speakers, which none of the other channels on the disambiguation page do. The largest on there would be the New York channel WNBC aka NBC4 aka NewsChannel4 (which doesn't actually seem to use the branding "Channel 4") indicates it broadcasts to the tri-state area, roughly co-terminus with the New York metropolitan area with a population of a third of to a half that. It is wikipedia policy "to name articles what to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". While this is not a majority, it is certainly a plurality. To my mind that should be enough. There is a disambiguation page at the top anyway, for people who want other Channel 4s. Incedently Channel 4 (Britain), would be completely incorrect as it is widely broadcast in Northern Ireland (not part of Britain) but not in Wales (part of Britain). – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I said. The centre of the world has spoken. --Rob 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

True or false??

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)

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)

Extrapolation

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??

1. ___
2. BBC
3. ITV
4. Channel 4
5. Five
6. Sky Broadcasting
7. ___
8. ___
9. ___
10. ___
11. ___
12. ___
13. ___

66.245.105.195 01:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing that forces people to have their channels in a particular order, as analogue broadcast channels can appear anywhere between UHF channels 21 and 68. However, most people will have set up their channels so that they appear as

1. BBC1
2. BBC2
3. ITV
4. Channel 4
5. five

With digital tv it all depends on the platform. Sky Digital channel numbering starts from BBC1 at 101 in the UK (RTE1 is on 101 in the republic of Ireland). I have Freeview, and my channels are numbered:

• 1 BBC1
• 2 BBC2
• 3 ITV1
• 4 Channel 4 (in England, Scotland, and N. Ireland. S4C in Wales)
• 5 five
• 6 ITV2
• 7 BBC3
• 8 vacant in England; Channel 4 in Wales, something in Gaelic in Scotland.
• 9 Teletext
• 10 BBC4
• 11 Sky Travel
• 12 UKTV History
• 13 S4C2 (Wales only)
• 14 E4
• 15 abc1
• 16 QVC (not Wales)
• 17 UKTV Gold
• 18 The Hits
• 19 UKTV Bright Ideas
• 20 ftn
• 21 TMF
• 22 Ideal World
• 23 bid-up tv
• 24 price drop tv
• 25 TCM
• 26 UKTV Style
• 27 Discovery
• 28 Discovery Home & Leisure
• 29 UKTV Food
• 30 CBBC
• 31 CBeebies
• 32 Cartoon Network
• 33 Boomerang
• 34 ITV3
• 40 BBC News 24
• 41 ITV News Channel
• 42 Sky News
• 43 Sky Sports News
• 44 Bloomberg
• 45 BBC Parliament
• 46 Community

plus various interactive channels. -- Arwel 02:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No 13! Is this related to triskaidekaphobia?? 66.245.70.203 02:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

In Ireland, there are nine preset channels. In the north-west counties, around the Donegal/Derry/Tyrone area, there are 10.

• 1. BBC 1
• 2. BBC 2
• 3. UTV (ITV Northern Ireland)
• 4. Channel 4
• 5. five
• 6. RTE 1
• 7. RTE 2
• 8. TV3
• 9. Channel 9 (Officially called C9TV, but still referred to by people as the name it began with)
• 10. TG4

Robert Mc Cann

Page name

Am I the only one that thinks this page should really be on "Channel Four" or "Channel Four Television"? Chris 01:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. AFAIK the official name is a numeral, not a word, and the common name certainly is. Joe D (t)

Indeed, if you look on the channel 4 website, they only ever refer to themselves as "Channel 4", as do ofcom on their site, so should not be movedMrWeeble 07:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange. HMSO's record of the legal documents seem to disagree, as does the channel4.com WHOIS record, and the ASA for that matter. In fact, it seems Ofcom only refer to "Channel 4" in the same way as they refer to "Channel 3". On the licence page, they are described as "Channel Four Television". One would also assume that thire entry as members of the DVB Consortium would also be accurate. It is also cited as their name on their own site. Of course, HMSO, Ofcom, the ASA, InterNIC and Channel Four themselves could all be wrong ... Chris 23:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would still be for keeping it at "Channel 4" and just changing the intro to "Channel Four Television, known to most as Channel 4, ...", for two reasons:

1. "Channel 4" is not only the common name, but the most commonly used brand name format of Channel Four Television Corporation - more people know the subject of this article as a television channel & brand than they do as a business.
2. everybody will link to and search for "Channel 4" and this way it will reduce redirecting/simplify linking.

Joe D (t) 00:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You say that they refer to Channel 4 the same way they refer to Channel 3 but Channel 3 is not a live Wikipedia article. 66.245.21.126 00:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who says that and where? There is no "Channel 3" article because there isn't a television station named "Channel 3". Joe D (t) 01:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Channel 3" is the term used to describe ITV in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. It was intended to rebrand all the ITV companies "Channel 3 something", but only Tyne-Tees TV went so far as to rename itself "Channel 3 NorthEast" for a few years in early 1990s, before reverting back to TTTV. It was all rather like that Post Office --> Consignia stupid idea... -- Arwel 01:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's also the way in which Ofcom refer to the ITV network - you'll find numerous references to the "Channel 3 companies" in amongst the finer print. But what are we documenting here? The company and its service, or the brand name? Chris 21:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both! Joe D (t) 22:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page move

(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)
  • It's not much of a debate, it's pretty clear that Channel 4 is the preferred location of the article. -- Arwel 16:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Arwel - it's fine where it is. -- Avaragado 19:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep where it is, I've already given the reasons on the talk page. Joe D (t) 23:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as Channel 4. While the legal name of the corporation is Channel Four Television Corporation, The channel is always called Channel 4. I think most people are more likely to link to the channel rather than the corporation. However, an argument could be made that we should create a page called Channel Four Television Corporation to explain the unique governance and the other channels from the corporation (E4, FilmFour, More4 etc) MrWeeble 21:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or at least redirect Channel Four Television Corporation to Channel 4/Channel Four/Channel Four Television. Thelb⁴ 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Private firm / Non-Profit

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[1] 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)

Favourite swear words promo

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)

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)

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)

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)

Public Service Broadcasting

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"E4, a digital entertainment channel previously available on the Internet"

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)

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)

Can anyone help me get channel 4?

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) alex

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)

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)

Requested move

This place is for discussing and voting on a request to move this article to Channel 4 (UK). There are other channel 4's in the world. Most people wouldn't instantly think of this channel 4. Also, its possible for somebody to make a link to this article by accident (intending another, as they assume everybody knows of *their* channel 4). I think the reasoning is fairly obvious. Also, the fact the channel is seen outside the UK, doesn't change the fact it's based in the UK, and the UK is a reasonable qualifier. --Rob 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to move this article --Lox (t,c) 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• Support move (obviously). There's a world outside the UK. --Rob 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against There is a world outside the UK, but on wikipedia it hasn't got a Channel 4. As far as I can see is there is only other "Channel 4" on en.wikipedia at the moment is Iranian and it is now branded as tv4. Keith Greer 12:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Wow, I thought this was sorted out already. No, it shouldn't be moved, because Channel 4 is a brand name. There is no other Channel 4 brand. Sure, there's other channels that is on the 4 channel (and by 'channel' I mean the button on the remote control, or the area of the tv bandwidth), but they are not called Channel 4. The only time people will link to [[Channel 4]] is when talking about Channel 4. Needing a (uk) on the end will bring up lots of wrong links. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No other article, and any US TV station that is on VHF channel 4 is going to be in under its callsign, as is the protocol. This is the only station with an article thats actually called "Channel 4" as its real name, legal name, and on-air name. --Kiand 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as commented above, "Channel 4" seems to be the only channel currently calling themselves "Channel 4". The disambiguation link at the top of the article seems to serve its purpose! --Lox (t,c) 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Jooler 17:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose yet again. This is (as far as I know) the only channel branded as such and is also the most widely distributed channel in the english language world with any claim to the article name. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, see last time this came up. Joe D (t) 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Lox. The JPS 18:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as others have explained. --AntzUK 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as above, this is the only channel that is solely named and branded 'Channel 4'. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How widely known is this in the United States

Someone wrote in the above requested move that this channel is the most widely distributed meaning of "Channel 4". Well, how well-known is this channel in the United States?? We know that the United States has more people thatn the United Kingdom, of course. I'm quite sure that everyone in the United States who has heard of it has heard of it either by visiting England or by stumbling across its Wikipedia article. Georgia guy 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what the general ignorance of the American public has to do with this. Jooler 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they've probably known of it through its movies and its co-productions with US networks, which have been fairly extensive. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As an American, Channel 4 to me is WNBC TV in New York City. I suspect that anyone in the NYC area would offer the same response. While our TV stations have formal call signs, it is normal in a discussion to use the stations broadcast channel to refer to a station. It is also very common for us to also use the network as a short hand for the local station. So based on my perception, there are many stations know as channel 4 in the US and most of the US would not even think of a channel in England. Vegaswikian 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it is -not- Wikipedia policy to have a US TV station refered to as other than its FCC callsign, where Channel 4 is this stations official, legal name and indeed is what the parlimentary acts founding it call it as. The ones in the US are just "Kxxx/Wxxx on VHF Channel D", which to me is RTÉ One from Mullaganish, but I'm not going to add it to the disambig page let alone request it gets mentioned on the main article on the back of that. --Kiand 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How widely known is this in the United States? Who cares? A valid question for this discussion is "How widely known is this in the English speaking world?"

My point was not that a majority of people think Channel 4 means this one, but that a plurality does, ie the populations of The United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and probably the proportion of Éire, where it is available. My estimate is a little over 60 million people. My estimate for availabilty of WNBC on channel 4 is the greater New York Area, which I believe to be about 20million people. 60 million > 20 million, so this Channel 4 wins the claim. If anyone can point me to an english speaking television channel that more than 60 million people will refer to exclusively as "Channel 4" then I shall withdraw my objections to the move.

Additionally, Vegas, you say Channel 4 to you is WNBC, but assume for a moment the article didn't exist and there was no naming policy for tv channels. Surely when starting the article, you would choose a formal name for it, rather than just what position it was on the dial. I mean when I say, "flip over to two" I actually mean BBC Two, which I do know is its formal name. "Channel 4" is not just a description, as it is in many other cases, it is its legal name as well as brand name. It is almost a shame that we have those enforced initial upper cases, as otherwise we could have Channel 4 (proper noun capitalised) and channel 4 (generic term). MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you notice, I did not make a claim in support of keeping or changing the article at Channel 4. I simply offered what I believe is a normal American response. This was in response to a question. There seems to be sound reasons for keeping the current article where it is at this time. I think this discussion highlights the differences in the English speaking world. I was aware of some of thedifferences from the business world, but getting involved in this wiki has shown me how many more there are. WNBC is just one example that I grew up with. There are many more across the US, so for many across the US, there is a channel 4 in their world, just not the Channel 4 being discussed here. So the asumption that my comments only cover 20-60 million is not accurate. It covers the entire US so the real number is probably in the range of 200 million. Having said that I am still not advocating that anything be done about moving the current article. What I believe is true is the point that several have made. The Channel 4 in the article is the only TV broadcast station/channel using/assigned that name. Vegaswikian 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising regions

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)

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)

New logo

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)

I suggest Channel4proper.png gets deleted. -- 9cds^(talk) 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think this is a common problem in IE. For anyone having problems, the first few links on this page has some information about it. --AntzUK 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now it has a grey background! :) -- 9cds^(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the transparent one until someone can fix it. --AntzUK 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Can't it be uploaded as a transparent GIF until the IE problem is resolved? -- jeffthejiff (talk)

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)

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)

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)

For crying out loud

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)

Protected

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

Channel 4 News (Britain)

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)

I agree, it should be moved. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Comic Strip Presents

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)

Channel number on NTL

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)

Yep, its 104 on the Langley platform and 4 on the Bromley platform. I'll edit it. Sonic 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Citations

Where are all the citations for this article? There are only 2 links in the references section. --Lorian 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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 {{Not verified}} tag to the article, although the {{unreferenced}} template may be more appropiate. This page may also be of help: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Sonic 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling

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)

Indeed, channel four tried to get out of the contratc as early as January 2000 due to Mae young exposing her prosthetic breasts.

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)

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)

Advertising regions

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)

The map showing Advertising Regions makes no sense to me. There are lines joining up what I presume are transmitter locations in different colours, but no explanation of what they all mean. --MikeNolan 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've provided the requested clean-up, including some additional relevent material, hope this clears things up. I got rid of the map as it was too ambiguous and also somewhat wrong, but the citation links to C4's own map. Couldn't find a citation for the acronym 'LEMNUS' though, I'll ammend as soon as I find one.--User:Fursday

124 Facilities?

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)

Channel 4 historical programmes

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)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktyuS (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Big Brother Racism Nonsense

File:Big brother racism row.png

Channel 4 have been accused in the press of racism, Big Brother logo MINUS star PLUS swastica EQUALS "Big Brother Racism Row"

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)

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)

I have removed the word 'nonsense' as this word makes the suggestion very subjective. Briantist 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

C4 'profoundly regrets any offence' Briantist 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 chairman Luke Johnson said "The Channel 4 board has commissioned a review of the editorial and compliance processes for Celebrity Big Brother following the race row that has engulfed the show.

"Clearly many people were worried and offended by what they saw," he said. "We profoundly regret any offence that may have been caused.

"On behalf of the board the chief executive [Andy Duncan] and I have commissioned a review of the editorial and compliance processes that support Big Brother.

"The board will receive a full report and seek to identify any lessons that can be learned for the future. The programme remains on air for a further week and the channel is focused on its completion."

He said that Channel 4 would co-operate with Ofcom's investigation into whether the show had breached its programme code.

The regulator has received 42,000 complaints about Celebrity Big Brother.

"We are expecting to hear from Ofcom in the near future detailing the nature and number of complaints they have received and requesting a formal response to their questions," Mr Johnson said. "Our own review will also help support this process."

And he added: "All board members of Channel 4 abhor racism. We are also committed to ensuring that the channel continues to fulfil its remit to explore important social issues."

Briantist 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need the giant Swastika, thanks. Diabolical 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How DARE you remove comments from a talk page? On what grounds? Briantist 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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) Wikipedia is not censored Briantist 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Minor Edits

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)

Controversy

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)

Channel Four Television Corporation

The Channel Four Television Corporation exits only years after the channel starts, the separate article is to point out the different status of the owning public corporation. ••Briantist•• talk 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I do not disapprove of the split per se, it is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative article to storm ahead and make such significant changes on a whim as you did: The appropriate method would have been to raise the idea here first, give a period of about seven days to gauge opinion and to see if there were any objections, then make the split about a week later; assuming there were no significant objections. I appreciate your enthusiasm and effort, but a little patience can go a long way. Carry on developing the other article by all means, but I do request that the merge tag stays for the next week to draw attention to the changes to passing visitors. Like I say, I don't necessarily propose undoing your changes, but the merge tag seems the best way of drawing such attention for a short period.

There are certainly arguments in favour of what you are doing, but I am concerned that the significant cross-over of material risks removing what is arguably relevant items from the main Channel 4 article to a place that may well get overlooked by those browsing the article at a glance. Assuming we continue with the two articles, there will certainly be need for duplication in certain aspects; the history sections in particular. Your split may well necessitate the creation of a further 'History of Channel 4' article to avoid this (something I have considered in the past, but avoided due to the fact it would be quite a hefty task, though undoubtedly worth it).

So please, do not make any more substantial changes of this nature without giving a few days for discussion here, first. Hardly too much to ask, is it? Fursday 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Channel Four Television Corporation into this article

Given some consideration I now find myself against the two separate articles, due to volume of material relevant to both: There is clearly a great deal of shared history, the management structure and headquarters parts are also just as relevant to Channel 4 as they are to the corporation, and I feel that the list of 'other channels' are needed in this article, as 'affiliate services' to the main station.

Other than these shared aspects I can see little to expand upon within the corporation article, beyond stating its purpose and the circumstances in which it was formed, all of which could sit quite easily in a relatively small section within this article.

I have raised the issue here, with no opinions either way having yet been expressed; therefore I propose carrying out the merger in five days time. Fursday 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a considerable difference between the channel and the coropration. Please do not merge them together! They are not the same! ••Briantist•• talk 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anybody disputes the difference between the two things, but that isn't in itself a reason for having two separate articles, at least not according to Wikipedia's guidelines on merging pages, which supports my argument pretty well; read the second, third and fourth points about merging. Like I say, the overlap in shared content is enormous. Pretty much everything within the corporation article ought to be in the main article because it is entirely relevant to Channel 4, management structure, history, spin-off channels et cetera. There is very little to expand upon the subject of what the corporation is and what it is for. Fursday 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a merge. There isnt anything on the Corp page which isnt here, or which could easily be put onto the page. So at the moment, my vote goes for a merger. -Coolmark18 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that a reason to merge the pages? The Channel 4 Corporation has existed for a differnet amount of time from the Channel, and the Channel 4 is only one of the channels that is run by the corporation. There are separate pages for the BBC and the BBC channels, ditto for Sky and it's channels, ditto ITV and it's channels, why is Channel 4 coropoation different? ••Briantist•• talk 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked that question. The difference between the corporation and the BBC or Sky for that matter, is that the Channel 4 Corporation was set up specifically to run the station Channel 4, and on paper, that's what it's still there to do. Its remit is specifically for Channel 4 and any other operations it carries out are distinctively 'asides' from this major purpose, and outside of its legal requirements. Without Channel 4, the Channel Four Television Corporation wouldn't be what it is, the two subjects are intrinsically inter-twined. Neither the BBC nor Sky are tied in with any single service in this way, although you could make the same argument about the early BBC, which was set up to provide radio services, and if this was 1930, a similar argument for having BBC Radio and the BBC in the same article would be quite valid. Fursday 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ITV is a different matter altogether, which has further complications that I shan't go into here (see Talk:ITV) but as it happens, other people have suggested merging ITV, ITV1 and Channel 3.

Maybe ten years down the line, there will be a case for splitting the two off, but now I simply do not see it. Besides which, and as I have said twice now already, two different things do not necessarily constitute two different articles in Wikipedia. If two things are very closely related, and share an awful amount of the same information, that is a good justification for a single article. Fursday 20:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Channel 4 Friday Comedy and Channel4.com into this article

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)

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)

Why not improve the articles instead of consolodating them? ••Briantist•• talk 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

It make sense to merge them into Channel 4] because it makes sense, why do u need an article separate for channel4.com? its like saying that you need a different article for everything. mark999 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly support this merger. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 4Talent into this article

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)

References and a tidy-up

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)