This article is within the scope ofWikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofLondon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
The following Wikipediacontributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may includeconflict of interest,autobiography, andneutral point of view.
should be included, they tried to frame the Brexit election of 2019 into a climate election, looking at their debates back then. Pretty obvious a left-wing channel.62.226.84.78 (talk)23:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why there was no mention of its political leaning. Obviously it should be mentioned, using such evidence as exists. Instead, the first half of this write-up gives vague hints that it's left-wing because of aiming at minority and diversity audiences and at "creativity". Later parts hint at right-wing bias because of a couple programs denying global warming. The reader has to guess.173.73.194.206 (talk)20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Rreagan007; yes, but I generally propose RM's on the talk page of the first page that needs to be moved. The reason for this primary topic inconsistency is simply because of the inconsistent brand histories. In the era Wikipedia developed, C5's brand was simply "Five", without the word "channel". No similar period existed with C4.Georgia guy (talk)23:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely irrelevant here whether and why one article is a primary topic and different one isn't. The only relevant question here is whether the British Channel 4 is the primary topic out of all articles that could be located at this title. Based on the disambiguation page, those are below.
Page views have been rounded to the nearest 1000, those for this article will include people seeking a different entry on the disambiguation page, the disambiguation page received 2,800 views in the same time period.
Search results count the number of hits in the top 40 (Google) or 50 (DuckDuckGo) results for"Channel 4" -wikipedia were related to the relevant article. This search was performed using Tor browser to eliminate issues from my search history, the exit node was reported to be in Brooklyn.
Support – "Channel 4" (or "Channel <insert number>" in general) is a pretty common name for local stations in the United States. For instance, when I search "Channel 4" online, the first twenty or so results include four U.S. TV stations (KDFW,KFOR,WCMH,WDAF). While the British channel is the most popular result, I think there's enough potential for other hits that the disambiguation page should take priority here.RunningTiger123 (talk)17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A national channel (which was once one of only four, hence its name) versus some local channels. It's very clear which is most notable by a very long way. --Necrothesp (talk)13:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In long-term significance, the British Channel 4 outweighs any of dozens of U.S. stations in its size and scope, and I can comfortably say this as someone who writes U.S. station pages by the bucket. It is also the obvious primary topic on pageviews and indeed the 10th-highest-viewed in August in all ofWP:TVS with 90,470 pageviews.Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)06:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
