Talk:Channel 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject British TV/Channels  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British TV/Channels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British TV channels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject London  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

References and a tidy-up[edit]

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)

4oD[edit]

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)
Can I re-open this conversation? Nearly four years have passed and most of the other video on demand services have their own pages (see Demand Five, for example). It would seem sensible to build out the 4oD section into a complete article - there is plenty of material - and provide a summary here with link to further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talkcontribs) 15:00, 14 January 2011 (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)

4oD has been redesigned, and now many programmes are available free. This section needs to be changed. Here's a possible reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5476217/Channel-4-creates-4oD-online-back-catalogue-free-of-charge.html JorWat (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"The "Catch-up" service offers content free of charge for both streaming and downloaded versions of a programme for thirty days after its broadcast on Channel 4". Wasn't the download service ended when they made their archive free?
I think it is only a streaming service now and for the last few months. I used to often download programmes, I missed, but I was sent an email from channel 4 telling me that they could not sustain that business model anymore. It may be different for BT Vision users, I don't know?? You can download channel 4 programmes, for a fee, via iTunes.

Lack of citation[edit]

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)

ibid[edit]

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)

Films[edit]

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)

Format of References[edit]

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)

4 Digital Group[edit]

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)

Channel 4 programming[edit]

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)

other services - teletext?[edit]

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)

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

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)

Submitted article to WP:RFPP[edit]

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

Wales[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move back. JPG-GR (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 (British Television Station)Channel 4 — Some user (FMBlogger (talk · contribs)) thinks that Channel 4 should be a disambiguation page, with no talk on any page. Also there is only three other pages that are known as 'Channel 4'. —  [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - primary topic for the article name. Any other Channel 4 will be nowhere near as well known as the other, studying the disambiguation page. A search of "Channel 4" on Google yields results for the UK station on every result bar UK TV station BBC Four (not known as Channel 4 for obvious confusion) on the first page (the next "Channel 4" in the disambiguation list, ironically "Channel 4 Wales" or S4C appears halfway on page 2). --tgheretford (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to Channel 4. This title is hideous. The JPStalk to me 10:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to Channel 4. Current title is unwieldy and patronising. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support We've had this discussion before - twice, in fact - and it was decided that all other uses of the term Channel 4 were either generic (i.e. any station broadcasting on the Band I frequency allocation 'channel 4') or a colloquial term for a station whose legal or official name is something other than Channel 4. Additionally, no reasonable case has yet been made of any other Channel 4 quite as notable or as well known as this one.

Furthermore, the move violates wikipedia article move procedures on numerous grounds. We are being far too gracious conducting this straw poll, the botched move should be reverted immediately with the responsibility of the original user to go through the appropriate procedures on this talk page (which judging by the support above will be a dead duck). The sooner the better, before the bots start messing with wikilinks in countless other articles.-- Fursday 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - thanks to the Channel 4 redirect not being a simple redirect (it has previous page history caused by the person who moved the page), you'll have to ask an admin to revert any changes or go through requested moves, as what as already happened tonight. As frustrating as it is. --tgheretford (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Had anybody approached an admin then? If not I suggest doing the latter. -- Fursday 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Fursday & others. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The requested move is incomplete. I have asked the editor who originally asked for the article to be moved to relist it, otherwise the discussion will have to be closed as keep due to a technicality. --tgheretford (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to Channel 4 as it is clear that the move by FMBlogger was made without discussion and is contested. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Corpo-wiki[edit]

Article nominated for corpo-wiki page of the week.

Corpo-wiki is such boring, boring tripe. Attention Channel 4 staffers: yes, everyone knows you are writing this page. Shock!

Quick, delete this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh you jerks, whats with the constant editing of the Simpsons? BBC played it out straight, grow some balls and play The Cartridge Family with the original ending.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted[edit]

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:4music.svg, found on Channel 4, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Channel Branding / (Idents)[edit]

I'm not an educated man in the field of channel branding (if that's the correct term even) So I haven't posted anything in the article, but I have a huge infatuation with the little links between slots when the next programme is being introduced. You know the ones I mean - The camera pans through a landscape until a huge CGI 3D channel 4 logo made out of motorway signs, buildings, cranes, straw bales, pylons or whatever briefly comes into alignment. Some of these are stunningly beautiful pieces of stand-alone visual art and are often accompanied by snips of cutting edge avant-garde music. All channels seem to have some equivalent of their own and indeed these clips occupy an increasingly significant proportion of air time and budget, but compared the counterparts on other stations, channel 4's are in a league of their own. I especially like the one in the container port. This page and indeed the whole of Wikipedia seems to make no mention of these little gems, which we are all so familiar with and are part of our collective consciousness. I'd have thought they at least deserved a mention. Wouldn't you? Traveller palm (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the BBC has this, this, this, this and this. ITV have this. Five has a section on its article. Channel 4 should then deserve a mention of its idents which are currently the best of British TV at the moment, so I would not mind a section or even its own article. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well at least I know what they're called and how to find them now, thanks. I think I've proven that I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable in the field to add this to the article myself, but I agree - someone should. Traveller palm (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Profanity[edit]

I've just had to remove a very rude piece of writing. Please be more vigilant.

The first advert on the new channel was for the Vauxhall Cavalier Mk II.[edit]

I'm going to remove this as (1), [citation needed] and (2) there is a possibility the first advert was different in each region! -- Fursday 06:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fundraising[edit]

The final section of the article is about a single charity event/programme, it's about something Channel 4 has produced rather than about the channel itself. I moved it to the Channel 4 Programming article where it fits neatly under Comedy, but it's been moved back. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The section can be expanded, this is a wiki after all. I am sure it is not the only thing they have done for charity. It is not just a program, its as simple as that. Dumping it in programming made no sense at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if this goes anywhere it should be in programming. This article cannot cope with every single campaign or theme the station runs. -- Fursday 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
If this article 'cannot cope' with documenting the fundraising activities of the organisation it is supposedly about, then the problem clearly lies elsewhere, and not with the addition of a few extra lines. It is the first campaign I've ever heard Channel 4 run. Maybe there have been others in the past, and maybe I don't know about them because like you are trying to do with this one, they have been shunted off to some other totally irrelevant place where no reader would ever think of looking for it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Comedy Gala is not a noteworthy development in the history of the channel. It doesn't develop anything that's in the article already as your placing of it indicated. It's a one off event, it doesn't contribute to a person's understanding of how the channel came to be, what it's like or how it has changed. We don't list all the books Channel Four has published or the beneficiaries of its sponsorship programme, or community activities. It's a good edit for the programming article, if you're really attached to it why not add it back there? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about any of the channel's beneficiaries, or anything about its community activites, that's the whole point! The article is totally deficient in this regard. It offers nothing, and it never will if this is the attitude taken to addition of new content. This is not just another programme, which is why I cannot even be bothered to go and look at the programming article, let alone waste time editting it. As a suggested alternative location, it is utterly irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not unusual for a television station, or any large organisation for that matter, to be involved in the community or charitable events, especially a public services. You will notice, for example, there is not a section on the BBC One article on Children in Need -- Fursday 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
For C4, I'll have to take your word for it, because if that's been documented anywhere on Wikipedia, I can't see it, which is why I started the section with the title Fundraising. Were I intending to merely add one section about one event, I would have called the section, Channel 4 Comedy Gala. If C4 has pulled off a larger benefit than this, as said above, its news to me. I don't know why you think bringing up the BBC strengthens the case, I think it is equally idiotic that a martian landing today and reading the BBC article, would not be able to discern a connection that probably every single person in the UK is aware of, that a major aspect of the BBC is its fundraising appeals. Depressingly, there seems to be no mention of it on the page anywhere, not the words or links to 'Children in Need', not 'Comic Relief', not even the word 'telethon' or 'charity'. The opening of the Children in Need article reads: BBC Children in Need is an annual British charity appeal organised by the BBC. Since 1980 it has raised over £500 million It is amazing that this is not mentioned anywhere in the BBC article. It's not surprising though to see Doctor Who gets linked to twice! Hows that for not mentioning specific programming in the channel article? Astounding. Frankly, two crap articles is only evidence of two crap articles, nothing more. The only relevant thing to say on that is that it is that BBC is presenlty a delisted GA, and maybe its lack of comprehensive coverage of its subject is the reason why it got delisted. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section[edit]

I've removed this, as it seem quite ridiculous that in the long and controversial history of the channel, that only a single accusation that turned out to be unfounded is included. Furthermore, as I understand it, the footage was shown in the ITN-produced Channel 4 News, so if this does need covering, it should be there. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think there should be a controversies section, but if there was this accusation shouldn't be in it and as the single entry in the section it's misrepresentative. Good call Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Digital Economy Bill[edit]

I believe the remit of Channel 4 (given in the opening section) has changed slightly under the new bill and perhaps needs highlighting and certainly updating, see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/10089.28-34.html#j351

User:Incrediblehunk (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Move protection[edit]

I see that there have been at least three attempts to move Channel 4 to a disambiguated title.

In each case, the prevailing view has been to retain the article at its current location. This is a view that I support as, being from Australia, I easily recognise "Channel Four" as being the UK channel by this name, it easily having a ubiquitous reputation with this name, to my mind. (Admittedly, there is no "Channel Four" here for me to confuse it with, but I instantly perceive this phrase as meaning the UK channel before I think of the possibility of any other.)

I wonder, therefore, whether it might be worth proposing move protection, to prevent further unwanted moves, since the subject has been discussed in detail on several occasions and the "debates" have been essentially landslides favouring the status quo. sroc (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal: E4 Radio[edit]

This radio channel was proposed, but never broadcast. It seems silly to have a separate article as its notability cannot be demonstrated. Should merge here, with a redirect. Rodhullandemu 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, 4 Digital Group would make a much more logical parent article to merge into. This article is getting a tad cluttered with stuff like that as it is... -- Fursday 01:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
4 Digital Group is a terrible article. Unless it was completely rewritten merging E4 Radio into it would only lead to an even bigger mess. Since both articles refer to nothing more than theoretical services I think both should be dramatically cut and merged into Channel 4. Short of that, I support the merge proposed by Rodhullandemu. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that 4 Digital Group is a bit of a disaster of an article (I recall it being built actually and thinking that at the time, all that has happened since is the insertion of a few past participles). There might be some mileage in the idea of creating a new article, though, one which combines and greatly condenses 4radio, Channel 4 Radio, 4 Digital Group, E4 Radio and some of the clutter from Channel 4#Other Services. As far as I can see, it's a question of either doing that or moving the whole lot to a new section here. Either-way, I'd be happy to do some of the legwork. -- Fursday 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

4OD should have it own page[edit]

4OD should have it own page like BBC iPlayer and ITV Player it is available on a lot of platforms i have started the page i would be greatful if someone could help me. here is the link User:Sfxprefects/4OD thanks Kelvin Sfxprefects (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Controversy about gypsies[edit]

I heard on BBC Radio Four today (February 16 2012) that Channel Four has been in trouble because it has called a programme about gypsies "gypsia". Does this article need a "controversies" section where this information could be added? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I think the programme is called "The Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" and the controversy has started because Channel 4 have described the programme as being "gypsier". This was mentioned on Today on Radio Four on February 17 2012 - the programme said this had caused controversy among the gypsy community in the United Kingdom, criticising use of the neologism "gypsier" -stating that there would have been a lot of controversy if a programme had been described as being "blacker" of "Jewisher". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ireland[edit]

The channel is available in Ireland however it should not be added in the main info box as there is no "Irish Variant" to the channel and it is not available on terrestrial and it just shows the Northern Ireland (ulster) advertising region and channel 4 is available in Switzerland in a similar way to Ireland therefore the country is just United Kingdom.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)