Talk:Channel 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject British TV channels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV channels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV channels, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Previous talk has been archived at Talk:Channel 4/Archive 2 and Talk:Channel 4/Archive 1.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 4oD

Is it worth splitting the 4oD section off into it's own article - it may be easier to resolve some of the potential conflicts within it -- the current text does not accurately describe the service through cable TV, and I believe it is sufficiently notable in its own right. -- Ratarsed 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but only if there is enough material to make a useful article out of it. What exactly do you have in mind?
If you can only stretch it about by another two or three paragraphs, then I would probably be hesitant and leave it as a sub-section. The sub-section, in one way or another, would stay anyway, just like E4, More4 and Film4 have sub-sections and main articles. An article for the sake of a couple of extra paragraphs seems a bit silly, unless it can be extended a lot more than that, but if you think you can, then great. Fursday 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to cover it in the main article without splitting it in to sub-sub-sections, as the service is completely different between that offered online, and that through Virgin Media (Charging, quantity, viewing period etc.) I only mentioned it here as I also feared it may just end being a little stubby... -- Ratarsed 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my worry too, but then again there is some cause to make it into an article, if for no reason other than the fact it's common to the other C4 stations as well as channel 4 itself. It's a pretty borderline decision. Perhaps the best course of action for now would be to develop the current sub-section here to improve the cable information, and see how big it gets, then consider moving it. It's also worth remembering that 4oD is very new, and as it matures, the amount of material on the subject, and cause for giving it its own article will no doubt increase to article level at some point. Fursday 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few updates to the 4oD section. The information is accurate and more can be provided, though it may not be presented in the appropriate manner. I welcome any feedback. Boopers 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the 4oD section as the service has recently been updated to officially work with Vista. Aviddd 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps we could add some more information about how it works. For example; the backend software. Just a thought Loves martyr (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of citation

It would be helpful if people start having a look through the article and place {{fact}} in places where they think there is a definite need for citation. The whole article is currently tagged as lacking references, but on the whole I don't think the article is especially bad on this front, and I'd quite like the tag moved to just the sections where there is a particular problem, as a lot of the article does seem fine to me. -- Fursday 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ibid

I think it would be more constructive to avoid "ibid" citations, and instead use named references -- thus avoiding any confusion if a paragraph is restructured, or has a new reference spliced into it. It seems silly to have a mix of the two in the article. Maybe this could be combined with a general tidyup and inclusion of citations? -- Ratarsed 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ibids, and referenced the multiple links in the appropriate way. Fursday 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films

I propose making a 'Films' section if nobody has any objections, moving much of the content from the Film4 sub-section of Other Services, and the Film sub-section of Programming.

I feel that Channel 4's contribution to the British Film industry, involvement in the making of British films and the history of Channel Four Films needs to be covered in one single place, rather than being spread out over various sub-sections, and some parts could do with further expanding further.

Any good sources for citation, much appreciated. -- Fursday 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format of References

As some of you have noticed, I have been introducing the Template:Cite_web/doc template in the article to tidy-up there references. I propose that everybody adding and amending references use this format from now on.

For those unfamiliar with how to use this template, have a read. In particular, I think we ought to be using the pages attribute, for large documents (such as large PDFs) where a direct, clickable references to the appropriate section within a weighty document makes accessing the information far easier.

PDF documents can be paged linked by simply adding "#page=x" to the end of the url, which can then be included into the pages= attribute of the reference, e.g:

<ref name="refname"> {{cite web
|url=url/doc.pdf
|title=title
|author=author
|pages=[url/doc.pdf#page=12 Page 12], [url/doc.pdf#page=14 Page 14] & [url/doc.pdf#page=27 Page 27]

etc...

Alternatively, if only one page is being linked, this can be included in the URL itself and the title ammended appropriately, e.g:

|url=url/doc.pdf#page=12
|title=title, page 12

-- Fursday 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Digital Group

I would like to draw editors' attention to talk:4 Digital Group where a discussion is taking place on my proposal to move the article to UK DAB National Radio multiplex licence for reasons described in that talk page. 4 Digital Group, are the Channel 4 lead consortium making a bid for a UK-wide DAB multiplex. -- Fursday 06:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an unenclopedic change, and cannot continue. The consortium is a real entity, and deserves it's own page, whereas the "UK DAB National Radio multiplex licence" is a future event, or could refer to the existing one! ••Briantist•• talk 09:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 4 programming

The Programming section has recently been moved to its own article. Whilst the discussion process was unduly skipped, I for one support the move and assuming it is not contested, have made the following changes/proposals@

I have moved the recently created Channel Four programming to Channel 4 programming in keeping with Channel 4's own naming procedure, and the naming of this article.

I am also proposing the merger of List of Channel 4 television programmes into the new article. If you have any views or comments about this merge proposal, please make them at talk:Channel 4 programming. If supported, I will also merge FourDocs in at the same time. -- Fursday 05:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I too support the split of articles, but... there is a style fault with the main Channel 4 article. Summary style guidelines suggest that when a long section of an article which has been split into its own article (in this case - Channel 4's programming), a several paragraph summary of that section should be kept within the article. This hasn't been done and when I read through the article quickly earlier on, I almost missed the programming section completely. This will need fixing, especially if the article is to get towards good article status. --tgheretford (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other services - teletext?

shouldn't teletext be added to the list of other services provided? can someone do this please? Cm619 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, with references. --tgheretford (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers :) Cm619 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has Channel Four been dumbed down since More Four?

On the wiki article on BBC 2, there is a section (and a rather poorly sourced one) accusing BBC 2 of being dumbed down since BBC 4 came into being. In the same way, should this article debate whether Channel Four has been dumbed down since More4? In the Radio Times earlier in 2007, there was information that the percentage of factual documentaries on Channel Four had actually decreased, and I also heard an interview on the Radio Four programme "Today" in which it was said that Channel Four viewers these days were more likely to watch low-key programmes than programmes such as Dispatches. Of course, since the Radio Times and "Today" are both linked to the BBC, they would be somewhat biassed; but at least, if some one could find these references, such claims would actually receive some source citation. ACEOREVIVED 18:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's touched on already in an uncited statement in 2.3

"After control of the station passed from the Channel Four Television Company to the Channel Four Television Corporation in 1993 (see above) a shift in broadcasting style took place. Instead of aiming for the fringes of society, it began to focus on the edges of the mainstream, and the centre of the mass market itself{fact}

That quote has been tagged as uncited for quite a long time, actually, so we either need to address this issue or remove it. In theory I like the idea of touching on this subject, but we can't really be doing it without the citations. We'd need a citation or two claiming that Channel 4 has become "dumbed down" as well as citations, independent from that, giving some sort of statistical evidence to back that view up. Nice idea if we can find the sources, though. -- Fursday 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
We'd need to avoid the embarrassingly populist "dumbed down" phrase too. The JPStalk to me 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Fursday 04:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just to let you people know that I also dislike that phrase dumbing down, and I used it to indicate that it had been used on the page on BBC Two.However, I think the quality of English in this article has now been improved by some kind person. ACEOREVIVED 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submitted article to WP:RFPP

I have requested semi-protection due to the recent spate of vandalism. -- Fursday 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wales

The subject of Wales is appropriate as a top-level section at the start of the article because the station's absence from Wales is a fundamental point in describing Channel 4 and its history, both of which are matters covered at the start rather than the end of the article. For those just skimming the article, it also provides the link to S4C early on. Furthermore S4C is not a region of Channel 4 itself and therefore not appropriate as a subsection of the regions section.

This material was previously all in the article's lead-in. I turned into the first section a while ago to reduce the length of the lead-in and because I considered it more appropriate as a section, but it's early placement is still in my view important. -- Fursday 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This content is not appropriately positioned at all within the article at present. I agree that noting the station's absence from analogue broadcasts in Wales is significant, but having the "Wales" section appear before anything else in the article is very odd: the article is about Channel 4 as a whole. Geographic limitations of the analogue broadcast are a minor detail in the wider subject of the article. Also the topic of S4C is raised early on under the "History" heading so concerns that this information is required to understand the fundamental subject matter seem unfounded.
Perhaps grouping the detail on Wales near to (but not under) that on "Regions" and then moving both sections up the article would be more appropriate? Or alternatively moving the "Wales" content to a sub heading of "History"? Splateagle (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)