Talk:C4 (New Zealand TV channel)

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Stations

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Fixing the page

This page is in a pretty dire state. I started the improvement process and added a couple of tags, but I'm not an expert and didn't check the material so my changes were mainly cosmetic. Hopefully some dedicated editors can clean up the historical information and add some quality references. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

camilla martin

the camilla martin who hosts intellectual property on C4 is not a danish olympian though she is linked to such.

Top 10

As of 15-June-07 Top 10 is still aired 10:30 on a friday night http://www.c4tv.co.nz/ShowDisplay/tabid/52/Default.aspx?listingID=744164

controversy section

the controversy section seems excessive in proportion to the article, perhaps that item could be cut down to say, a sentence in length. (i.e. it really isn't important that some religious extremists complained about a program that wasn't to their taste)

What reasons are there to delete the schedule?

It isn't original research, there a reference showing it comes from the primary source, the station itself. There is no doubt of it being valid information. The long discuss elsewhere had people complaining about not liking it, it original research, and discussing this and that. I reverted the deletion. Dream Focus 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules. Strong consensus (like 5:1) supporting removal of per-station TV schedules in compliance with the policy at WP:NOTDIRECTORY which says "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". Further discussion, if you like, at the above referenced WT:NOT talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:C42 New Zealand.gif

The image File:C42 New Zealand.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue regarding recent edit revert

I made an edit that corrected grammar according to standard English conventions and also removed some material that was not relevant to a specific section in the article. The edit I made did not alter the meaning of the article, it only addressed grammar, potential bias, and information that could use verification from a non-primary source. The previous editor @PyrusKittyCat(I will refer to as Pyrus) wrote the "History" section in a way that seemed biased to a reader who knows nothing about the channel's contents or the history of said channel. When Pyrus reverted my edit, he claimed that I "removed the most important citation that [he cited]." The removed citation is about a music video receiving the No. 1 spot in the "Top 100" list mentioned in the article. Information about the awards/recognition a music video received should not be placed in the history section of a TV channel it was broadcast on. The grammar fixes that he also reverted were, I believe, unnecessary. There are several instances of redundant statements in the article, some of which are "On 15 August 2003, nearly a couple of months prior to the announcement of its launch in early October" and "The very first ever music video." In the first example, "nearly a couple of months" doesn't make sense. Any reader should be able to discern that October comes two months after August. In the second example, "very first ever" contains two unnecessary adverbs, "very" and "ever," and can also be seen as bias favoring the TV channel. While I understand that the editor who wrote the article presumably likes the TV channel, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place to let affection toward a subject affect the quality of an article about it. There is also a statement that can be seen as biased: "The Top 100 also included the legendary Metallica." The word "legendary" can be seen as favoritism toward Metallica. The final issue I'm attempting to fix is the lack of citations. In many instances, previous editors made claims/quotations that do not have citations attached to them. Some examples are "...described as 'Utter, Utter Nonsense' during an article on The New Zealand Herald in its countdown show," "the music video was based on the 1971 anti-war film Johnny Got His Gun," and "New Zealand On Air paid $500,000 for the first year of operation and C4 was to broadcast 58 hours a week of music television in prime-time, reaching 72% of the population, with a target of 20–25% New Zealand music content."

I am not trying to start an edit war; for now, since Pyrus disagreed with my edit claiming that I removed important information, I will make a new edit that just fixes grammatical errors and bias. However, if Pyrus decides to continue reverting my edits without evaluating their merits, I will create a third opinion dispute resolution request. XxArctisxX (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I just wanted to clarify that I have been a big fan watching C4 Television when I was growing up as a child here in New Zealand & if I was never a fan of C4, I wouldn’t have taken this Wikipedia page or article very seriously. I just wanted to clarify something else in regards to the Nirvana music video receiving the Number 1 Top Spot on the Top 100 was that I put that very sentence into the article myself the same time as I put that citation into the page because I wanted the C4 fans to know that the information was true & I did have the evidence to prove that, which was that very important piece of information you did remove, that was why I restored the third citation about C4’s launch. I did do my research when I found some articles on The NZ Herald regarding C4’s launch before I overhauled the C4 Wikipedia article a year & a half ago, which was also the reason why you saw the sentence “Utter, Utter Nonsense” in regards to the Metallica music video. This isn’t only just for me, I’m doing this on behalf of all C4 fans in NZ who loved watching C4 as much as I still do to this day in 2023, especially with the remaining C4 footage I do have on my former TiVo video recorder that I can still watch to this day also in 2023 (Obviously before C4 shutdown sadly) & I’m still yet to add on plenty more information in the music shows part of the page because I’ve still got some more music videos to add on when I do get the time. Likewise if you’re still unsure about anything or have any questions, you can give me a dm on my socials (or short for social media) as this is my same username I use for Wikipedia & I am sorry if my last response to you wasn’t off to a good start for you personally 💯 PyrusKittyCat (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]