Talk:List of television channels in the United Kingdom

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of television channels in the United Kingdom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Are the channels really all "general entertainment" that have been classified as such?

Does it make sense to have BBC Two and BBC Four classed as "General entertainment"? OK, so some entertaining programmes (such as Have I Got News for You or Never Mind the Buzzcocks) do sometimes get broadcast on these two channels, but a lot of these two channels are documentaries/ factual programmes. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward

Following some discussion at Talk:Freesat#List of channels on Freesat, I think its worth discussing possible changes following the round of AfDs which deleted list articles on individual companies channel line-ups (AfD/List of channels on Sky and AfD/3rd bundle of channel lineups), similar to the discussion on the DTT list. Based on the results of AfD/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) and AfD/List of television stations in New York there isn't a threat of deletion to this article, however all mention of Freesat, Sky, Virgin TV, TalkTalk TV and Smallworld Cable was removed, with DTT remaining.

I disagree with that move and there was also some discussion in AfD/List of Net channels that a list containing all channels in an area which also lists providers may be valid, so the AfDs don't appear to clearly apply. Freesat, Sky and Virgin TV are large, national services with significant coverage in the press, marketing etc. and relevent to the topic. UK service are required to follow published fair and regulated EPG policies[1] and the largest service (Sky) has closed its launch queue for new slots which together have lead to fairly stable numbering, while neither Freesat or Sky has the ability to deny a licensed channel a listing. The channel numbers themselves aren't trivial as there is a direct relationship between them and audience figures.[2][3] TalkTalk TV and Smallworld Cable are small services which are legacy and regional respectively, with little or no coverage in the press and probably shouldn't be listed. As services and channel numbers are also listed within each channel's article, this would appear to be acceptable as an index Wikipedia's own content. Without subscription information, it can't be a resource for conducting business or a sales catalogue. List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom displays that this information can also be long-lasting. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As we mention the channels on DTT in this article I see no problem with mentioning the others. I think this information would be of benefit to readers, and in fact enhance the quality of the article. From a personal point of view I would like to have a quick and easy resource for finding out what is available on the various platforms. A list of this type is easily maintainable if enough people are watching it. Also, I think it's rather bizarre that we would decide to keep a List of channels on Freeview (UK), but dump the information about other significant providors. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Horning did mention in the Net channels AfD that under WP:UNDUE, any major services representing a significant viewership should be included alongside the accepted terrestrial services. Although there hasn't been much feedback, no opposition has been raised to this so I'll go ahead and re-add Freesat, Sky and Virgin TV. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding current company lineup information clearly violates WP:NOTDIR and the exhaustive consensuses formed at the AfDs. Reinstating the same deleted information violates the determination of the AfDs. One Wikipedia policy (WP:UNDUE) is not a way of disregarding another (WP:NOTDIR). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely stupid - if DTT channel numbers can be listed, why not the other platforms used by even more people? The ever changing and amazingly incoherent rationales behind the whole raft of changes made across Wikipedia to articles like these recently is nothing short of lunacy. It's bad enough that useful articles are being deleted (often as a result of repeatedly re-nominating them over and over again until the 'right' result is achieved) but this kind of nonsense is actively corrosive to the project, in my view. Bonusballs (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and think that DTT channel listings should be deleted as well. It was an arbitrary exception that came as a result in the AfD discussions, and it can and should be challenged. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was the opposite of Bonusballs' point. Both List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) and List of television stations in New York were kept because they related to all channels/stations regardless of provider and wouldn't therefore be susceptible to regular change based on the whim of a single operator or a resource for conducting business, not on the basis that they cover terrestrial/broadcast television. This was neatly summed up during an exchange between postdlf and Rich Farmbrough during the Net channels AfD. List of television stations in the United Kingdom also contains all channels. The AfDs which resulted in deletions were related to lists for a single operator and established that they were directories per NOTDIR. The AfDs did not establish that any mention of services and a channel's number on that service should be deleted, see most of the channels listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox television channel for example. NOTDIR states, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." As nothing that was added back wasn't already in Wikipedia nor was there information on subscriptions required (as in many of the provider lists), I fail to see how the AfDs or NOTDIR relate. Much of this was in the first post. It should be noted that you've also reverted some updates and corrections to the article which would be needed regardless of the result of this discussion. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting Company Channel Lineups

I have reverted Jasmeet 181's reinsertion of current company channel lineups into this page. One cannot ignore policy just because "discussion has died off." I can guarantee that based on the AfDs of channel lineups, there is (still) a broad consensus to remove such content from Wikipedia because it fails WP:NOTDIR. Agreement by three users in the previous discussion on this talk page does not indicate a consensus to ignore policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My actions were based on the advice given in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss, which states "If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or refind) other interested parties." As you've returned to revert my edits, that's exactly what's happened. However, once again you've failed to address any of the points raised in the previous and still open discussion, nor have you actually explained how the addition of the satellite and cable providers would violate NOTDIR, yet alone established a consensus that you are correct. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the only part of WP:NOTDIR which seems to be relevant to a list of television stations is that 'Wikipedia is not an electronic programme guide'. Since a list of channels is clearly NOT a programme guide, as no programme-related information is present, it seems perfectly in order for a list of television stations to be accompanied by information relevant to each entry. Bonusballs (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken truth here is that many editors (not pronouncing any specific users, as many are simply short-term IP addresses) want to keep/reinsert channel information in order to maintain a "useful" channel guide, a position was uttered at almost all of those AfDs. The purpose of building and maintaining information useful to cable subscribers – rather than building an encyclopedia – is what most fails the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. Regarding the way forward, these channel numbers will not be re-added to any article on Wikipedia because they violate non-negotiable policy. I think you'd have more luck at the Channel Listings Wikia page for that information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a subtle difference here. An article which lists only television channels carried by a particular satellite or cable provider is one thing. A list of television channels broadcast in or to a particular country is - by the bizarre standards of these 'precedents' - different. The precedents you quote are those used to delete, in their entirety, other articles, in a different format, about different subjects. If a list of television channels in the UK is OK, the question of what additional information is present in that article seems pretty obviously a fresh question and not one covered by the precedents against "lists by content or company", as decreed unacceptable by the previous discussions. I don't think the wiping of these other articles justifies the excision of this specific content from this article (which clearly qualifies under "lists by country, language or region" - apparently allowable) and, personally, I think that if you wish to make that change, it should be properly discussed and agreed here - in context - rather than just removed without specific discussion and consensus. Bonusballs (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Bonusballs. There's a clear distinction between this article and the deleted ones, which has been noted since the opening of the last discussion. Wikipedia policy is negotiable because Wikipedia does not have firm rules, it's how the single provider lists went from being acceptable to being deleted following consensus reached during discussions. However, we haven't reached a consensus that NOTDIR applies in this instance for nearly a month.

One of the points from the AfDs was that the provider could in theory remove any of the channels it wished to (after contracts expire etc.), something which isn't uncommon in America but rare in the UK because of regulation, therefore the provider would control the content of the article. That isn't the case in a list of all channels as the channel could continue elsewhere within the market. Frequency of edits/updates isn't mentioned in NOTDIR and is rubbished as reason to delete under WP:UPTODATE. Movement between numbers is not particularly common (there's nothing in the Future events section for example) again because of regulation, so update frequency isn't really increased and that argument has already been debunked. Ignoring that some/all of the reintroduced providers can be received and viewed without a TV subscription, the DTT in the UK list contains subscription and pay-per-view channels, so the argument that information which could potentially be useful primarily to subscribers isn't encyclopaedic doesn't work either (along with the existence of thousands of articles on products, services and businesses). There seems to be no questions raised over whether the availability of a channel should be listed within the channel's own article either (usually in the infobox) or attempts to remove them, which is inconsistent with the idea that there is a "broad consensus to remove such content from Wikipedia." While usefulness wasn't mentioned once here.

Since Wikipedical has left DTT availability, in my opinion NOTDIR becomes irrelevant anyway as we're discussing additions of the same type of content (which is available elsewhere within Wikipedia) within the list rather than the list itself, which would lean more to WP:NOTE (specifically WP:NNC and WP:LISTCOMPANY). - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

The structure of this list is a remnant from the time when it needed to include LCNs from a bunch of different providers. It no longer does, and I'd say if would benefit from a restructuring that abandons the needlessly complicated table system and random genre system for a solution that simply lists the channels by their respective owners. Väsk (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious: Channel Ownership

There seems to be a ridiculous amount of Synthesis and Original Research going on in this article, where channels are being arbitrarily assigned to owners based on very little evidence, or what seem to be misunderstandings or guesses of how corporate ownership is laid out. Examples which particularly stand out include 'Ginx eSports TV' which is listed in this article as being owned by 20th Century Fox - which it is not - seemingly on the basis that Sky has a tiny investment in the channel. (Something like 10% I think? The same as ITV, and Ginx is not an ITV channel either.)

Likewise, just because a channel is owned by Sky does not mean that it is owned by 20th Century Fox. Fox only own 39% of Sky - a minority. Nor does it mean that just because a channel is a joint venture with Sky - like the History Channel, etc, that this channel is also owned by 20th Century Fox. If Fox only own 39% of Sky then Fox owns 39% of 50% (or less) of the joint venture - less than a fifth.

The grouping of Viacom and CBS channels under the 'National Amusements' banner is completely bizarre. While they have a common majority shareholder the two are completely separate businesses internationally. The CBS channels in the UK are a joint venture with AMC - CBS is not even the majority shareholder (see http://mavise.obs.coe.int/company?id=6523) so to argue that these are owned by National Amusements is strange to say the least. And to say that AMC UK is owned by National Amusements (as the article currently does) is 100% wrong.

There's so much wrong with this article that I'm not sure where to start - and frankly unpicking the tables is beyond my editing capabilities. But as it stands the article is a mess. Bonusballs (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this article needs a major cleanup. I have begun the long process of converting back to the previous list format, by basically copying the data in from the older revisions and updating it, and tidying up the layout including implementing columns to some of the larger sections. Bbb2007 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freeview/Freeview lite/Freeview HD/Freeview Local

There are a few channels available only on Freeview lite areas (eg Public Service Broadcasters etc) and some SD channels that are only available on HD multiplexes (eg Forces TV & Pick+1) and some only available on local TV (eg some True TV channels) - any chance of these getting marked up. 1701Will (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 1701Will (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]