Talk:Quiz channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Society Portal This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Criticism - Merge 2 4TV Win 2.1 Dispute 3 2007 British television phone-in scandal merge proposal and move proposal 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion

[edit] Criticism - Merge

Looking at the sections regarding the controversy of quiz shows and channels, these points could be levelled at a number of quiz shows/channels. Rather than repeat everything in every article, would it be better to place everything here with a brief explaination in the quiz show/channel articles about the controversy of these shows/channels specific to the article? Any general criticism/controversy that isn't relevant to the article should be merged here. --tgheretford (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All the sections concerned have been merged --tgheretford (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4TV Win

4TV Win has no relevant Google hits [1] and smells like to me as a violation of WP:HOAX. It sounds suspiciously simliar to the "4TV produced QuizLive" that kept being added to the Ftn article (until I requested an investigation into it) Can it please stop being added to the article. --tgheretford (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

And so again, without checking what I wrote in the history or the discussion page, someone has added it back, stating that it is on Sky without a verifiable source. In regards to this misinformation, I wish to quote what Jimbo Wales said from [2]:

“

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

”

See WP:VERIFY for more and sources. --tgheretford (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I also wish to add "I'm In It To Win It" which was also added, and has no relevant Google hits either [3] --tgheretford (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Source finally found for I'm In It To Win It, which is here: [4]. Still standby the dispute for 4TV Win. --tgheretford (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The history says that 4TV Win broadcasts on Life 24, yet a check on the website shows nothing [5]. I'm still dubious unless a reliable source can be found. As for the personal attack I removed from here, don't do it. Read WP:NPA, because you can be blocked for repeatedly attacking someone. "Comment on content, not on contributors" --tgheretford (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I written on your discussion page it was not a personal attack, it was a comment about the way your deletion and hoax labelling was done. It was rather rude of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.137.205 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. WP:VERIFY policy states that "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I've never heard of 4TV Win, it kept being added to the Ftn article (which is clearly untrue), until I requested an investigation into its constant addition without verifiable sources, it then suddenly stopped. As I said above, the Life TV website makes no mention of 4TV Win, and until a verifiable source can be found, I will not back down. Labelling a hoax as a hoax is standard practice as per WP:HOAX. --tgheretford (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about 4TV Win. I was talking about I'm In It To Win It which IS a quiz show, and you did not gather enough research and just labelled it a hoax. I just felt that it should not have been removed straight away as I could and did provide a source for the information. - 88.108.137.205

I'm going to butt in here.

First things first. 88.108.137.205, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes at the end of your comment: ~~~~ . Also, I heavily recommend getting a username.

While I am stepping in halfway through this argument, and don't even know what the hoax was, I do know that 88.108.137.205's calling Tghe-reford 'rude' is a personal attack, and I will take it into my hands to bring it up on WP:ANI if he or she continues. Marking something as a hoax is not being rude. This is a wiki, this is Wikipedia, where anyone can edit. If we let everyone get away with putting false or possibly false information here, we would be a complete jumble. "Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable, previously written facts."

88.108.137.205, by the sounds of things, Tghe's is more knowledgeable in our Wikipedia policies than yourself and probably would be willing to help you.

I help this helps you to resolve this conflict. If you've any queries, contact me on my talk page.

Cheers, Yuser31415^@?#& 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking anbout "I'm In It To Win It" which IS NOT a hoax and it was labelled as one. I could and did provide a source for the information and I thought it was rather rude in its deletion straight away. Yuser31415 I do not think this dispute has anything to do with you at all. - 88.108.137.205

[edit] 2007 British television phone-in scandal merge proposal and move proposal

I am suggesting that the information from 2007 British television phone-in scandal should be merged into this section. I don't personally think the current situation in participation television needs have its own article, especially as most of what is coming out is already covered in this article. As a consequence, would it be better to rename this article participation television so as to not only embrace quiz channels, but premium rate phone ins, psychic and adult call-in shows? --tgheretford (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge done (for some reason, I got the warning template, even though I didn't start the article..?) but it needs a lot doing to it. I would do it, but I am busy at the moment, so I have tagged that section accordingly. --tgheretford (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)