Talk:G4 (American TV network)/Archive 1

Propose rename URL
To G4tv, for better readability and navigation, but I don't know how to do this.Rayvn (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Announcement
What was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.4.138 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Criticism
I added this section because we needed more balance in the discussion. I like Tech and Video Game programming too, but they needed to change to stay alive. It's business. Just like how I poop in my pants so I can change my underwear. It's common sense.

If there is a response to criticism, there needs to be verifiable evidence that changes were needed. Several former TechTV staffers (how admittedly might be biased) have said that TechTV's ratings were much stronger than G4s and were continually going up when G4 bought them. Martin Sargeant has said that Unscrewed was canceled simply because the one of the higher-ups at G4 just didn't "get" the show not because of low ratings. Jccalhoun 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No critisisms section?
63.192.190.120 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC) The entire channel has had a rehaul, every old fan of it is speaking against it, the takeover and termination of many of TechTV's employees... I think it's time this page got a criticism section. It's basically now like what MTV did, and that page has one. Banzai and Triumph are coming as well. I say we start one.

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 03:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC) While I was thinking of adding one, after all I don't know one person who is peticularly happy with its programs, but I realized without a refference it might likely be deleted swiftly. So I thought mabe I could post here first and get the deleters opinion about it. Please not that if a critisism section was added by me, I would agrue both sides. Also I wanted to ask if posting that "no liable refferences were found, but take it to the talk page before deleting," would be a good idea.


 * After hearing that G4 is adding bring about the man show we need a critisims section ASAP. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.164.29 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:56, 28 September 2005.


 * I agree wholeheartedly. G4 is widely criticized for its focus on celebrities than gaming. --Phil 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree. As someone who loves video games and technology, I find it amazing how utter unwatchable their programming is. Between the controversy of the merger and the highly-debatable quality (or rather, lake thereof) of the channel itself there should be plenty to write a criticisms section on.--Daveswagon 09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a factual article unless you can get a news article and/or some facts based on this it should not appear. Wikipedia despite what you may think is a for reference and therefor must be factual Mike 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that G4 is a semi-obscure, niche market cable channel, it's unlikely that there will be any full-blown newspaper articles on the quality and merits of the channel (most people simply don't care). I was able to find the following negative press/blogs/postings simply by Googling "g4tv". I think it may say something that I was able to find negative material so easily with an unbiased search term. http://igo.ampednews.com/news/3151/</nowiki, http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/28/g4tv-vs-mtv-for-gamers/, http://joystiq.com/2005/12/13/g4-cancels-two-shows-revamps-a-third/ , http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2841 , http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=G4TV , http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.g4tv.com/ , http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/50635/Two_minutes_with_Farkcoms_Drew_Curtis.html (bottom of page) --Daveswagon 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we need a whining section about how everyone misses techtv Mike 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a "whining" section. It's a legit topic with legit concerns. I believe we should add one. iKato 01:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is right, there needs to be a criticism section. After all, how can they call themselves the "Video Game Network", when the majority of their shows have nothing to do with video games?71.96.11.37 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited
The statement: "The name G4 comes from the network's main subject material: Games, Gear, Gadgets, and Gigabytes (4 Gs)" is incorrect. According to the G4 FAQ (written by AGN himself):"G4 stands for 4 generations of games, Text, Sprites, Poly, Textures and 4 Game platforms PC, Console, Handheld, Arcade." Link to FAQ on mainpage.
 * The 4 Gs in question are the 4 Gs of G4techTV. --Lbmixpro 02:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The link referring to the show, "Players" incorrectly points to a Dick Wolf production of the same name. Someone should set up a page. --Metron4 21:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada's G4techTV refers to the 4G's as, "Games, Gear, Gadgets and Gigabytes". http://www.g4techtv.ca. It is quite possible that this does not apply to both networks. But just to keep in mind. Int X (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging
Do we need to merge G4 (television) and TechTV into G4TechTV? OR do we let them be? (Please Respond on This talk page to keep it in one place. Ilyanep 17:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No don't. Use TechTV to describe pre-WWII--I meam pre-merger TechTV, and G4TechTV to discuss the merger and the channels during the time of the merger. Don't forget to include the tensions on the forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.34.21 (talk • contribs)
 * I'd have to agree without merging them. In all reality, each network is different from each other, TechTV being an entire different product which has no actual relationship with G4 than being bought by Comcast, making each of the three entries specific to that time in the channels lives. Chris 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New page?
Is a new page necessary for pre-G4techTV and post-G4techTV? I mean, G4 pre-TechTV was available in less than 15 million homes, and post-G4techTV was available in over 50 million homes. Other changes too, like logos and shows should be considered for a separate page. --Mrmiscellanious 03:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's the same name and essentially the same channel, so I say it should stay here. This article is very short and the current information could easily fit in a new section of a larger text.  See the NBC article for how we could document the changes to the logo (if there have been enough changes).  I think the best layout for the page would be a section for each major change in G4, with a section for the pre-TechTV era, a paragraph or two on the G4techTV merged channel, with a link to the G4techTV article as the main article (as seen in the Germany article: "Main article: History of Germany", but "Main article: G4techTV" under the G4techTV section header). - MattTM | talk 03:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
Trial unprotect--I'm watching and will reluctantly restore protection if the vandalism resumes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for article protection
Due to a recent story at digg.com http://www.digg.com/technology/TechTv_is_NOT_Coming_Back._G4_turing_into_new_SpikeTv. , I believe it'd be wise to protect this article for a while. (23:36, 27 Sep 2005 (U.S. Central))


 * It deserves to be vandalised. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.164.29 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:58, 28 September 2005.


 * A notable development (including one of a controversial nature) is an excellent reason to make certain that a page is not protected. This is an encyclopedia, and such information should be included.  Aside from added attention where/when it's warranted, vandalism should not be dealt with proactively.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It keeps getting vandaled I think semi protection for a little bit is a good idea. Mike 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Call for Help
There needs to be a concensus reached about the condition of the show, i.e. whether its "Still airing, now produced by G4techTV Canada" or simply "Now produced by G4techTV Canada". I'm tired of seeing this revert war on my Watchlist and it's not helping the article at all. ~ Hibana 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Its fixed now and its ok. Mike Beckham 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT Remove Content
Please do not remove shows or move them to former shows if they are not cancelled or if they are scheduled to return. Mike Beckham 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the current status on Anime Unleashed?
Has the big announcement happened yet about what exactly is going to happen to it? Keep me posted. --AyrtonSenna 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect?
Can this article be semi-protected again for a while? It's being vandalised alot. Mike Beckham 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I just got though reverting information again. Chris 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's Arena?
I thought g4 was still airing arena reruns. but what happened?

It's gone. 24.188.203.181 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

G4's Training Camp
it was still airing on G4 but where it go?134.124.93.232 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comcast gives up on G4
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6159802.html --Elven6 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is G4 altering the article?
I was just wondering if it's possible that G4's altering it's article to make people think that it's not that bad of a channel. My two reasons for thinking this is that 1) G4 is fully aware of wikipedia (they mention it all the time) and 2) Sometimes, the critisism article sometimes is removed or very shortend or misleading. --Uber Cuber (User:68.43.180.69)


 * Your contributions to the criticism section were poorly worded, unsourced point-of-view. This is why they were removed, not because of a G4techTV conspiracy to silence all dissidents.  I realize that you want to go around exclaiming, as a concrete example, "Naruto Sucks", however Wikipedia generally desires its contributions to be more encyclopedic in nature. –Gunslinger47 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my brother wrote that. I would like to apologise to all Naruto fans offended. Also, I mainly ment that sometimes the critisims section is missing and everything on it is positive and/or biased. --Uber Cuber

G4 could be behind it thats why Wikipedia should be stricter and give more limitations.
 * Thank you! That's what I meant. You can't trust every user considering how Microsoft actually paid someone to edit their page.

We could always have someone use Wikiscanner on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting material from the early days of G4
This is a press release from the early days of G4. Its kind of illustrative of the unhealthy relationships the network wanted to have with advertisers. The original plan was for G4 to be more focused on licensed games with movie, sports or TV tie-ins. The launch schedule of shows was designed to bombard the viewer with coverage of the same movie/game from many different directions. They would review the movie in one show, review the game in the next, watch the actors from the movie play the game, show demos of the game on Cinematch and then profile the creator of the game all while running the trailer of the movie as a overly long commerical.

Why this is interesting is that it kind of explains why G4 failed. The original concept of the network wasn't actually to aim at games themselves or gamers at all. The plan was rather to cross-promote movies through their video game tie-ins.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. (August 8, 2002) - In a move that aligns the hottest new cable TV network with one of this summer's most anticipated movies, G4, the network all about video games, Revolution Studios and Sony Pictures have entered into a marketing partnership to promote the upcoming "xXx," opening in theaters nationwide August 9.

This partnership, which brings "xXx" to G4's teen and young adult audience, is comprised of a month-long promotion that includes programming integration, trailers, commercial spots and more, tying in "xXx" across many of G4's 13 original shows. G4 also will promote the Activision-published Game Boy? Advance video game for "xXx," now available and based on the film.

G4 will run full-length trailers for "xXx," as well as incorporate film-related content into many of its regular series. The network also will air a special "xXx" edition of its celebrity show, Players, featuring the film's stars Vin Diesel and Asia Argento, director Rob Cohen, and hosted by "xXx" star Michael Roof. Cinematech, G4's showcase for digital shorts, will feature "xXx" game animation and the film's trailer. And hosts from interactive talk show, G4tv.com, will chat with "xXx" game and movie fans. Judgment Day, G4's review show, will give viewers the low-down on the "xXx" video game. The network will also be on hand to cover the red-carpet premiere of the movie.

12.96.162.45 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

G4 IS ON Channel 515 BELL EXPRESS VU in CANADA
I live in Canada, and it is on Bell express VU, channel 515 so some one plz put it in the article! [22ndCW]Dell970 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't! G4 does not air in Canada, the Canadian affiliate called G4techTV Canada airs in Canada on channel 515 as you on Express Vu and on 514 on Starchoice. CroweZ3R0 02:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Early history
This article is really great, but it could use more on the years between 2002 and 2005. G4 didn't just start with the end of G4TechTV.--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a section on the early days. The not so nice version of G4's history is that it was created because Comcast needed more nitch channels to get people to buy digitial set-top boxes. Certain people at comcast hated techtv because it was too geek. They also thought there was a huge untapped market of non-geek hardcore gamers and nobody involved had watched MTV since about 1992 to know that its programming was no longer what they thought it was.


 * Eventually, certain people at the top of Comcast decided they needed more basic cable networks under their control. So they got the idea to push G4 out into really wide distribution. Rather than a niche network for digital, it would be pushed into wide distribution where the expectations would be much higher as far as ratings. TechTV was considered to be in the way of this play (it was "stealing" ratings that belonged to G4 in their warped thinking) so they went out and bought it. They co-opted the few things (mostly the credibility of a few hosts) that TechTV did better than they did and got rid of everything else.


 * When G4's ratings (as expected) were not large enough for such a wide distribution, Comcast reacted by blaming the video game programming and cutting off heads. I suspect their current plan is to run xplay into the ground by overexposing it until the ratings fall. The problem in the long run is that comcast is too cheap to spend the money necessary to make G4 a success at anything. 12.96.162.45 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sony bashing
While the sony bashing comment was removed from the criticism, there is some truth to it. The best example I can think of is xplay's repeated irrational bashing of the psp. Every time they review any game for it, they bash the platform before the review. If its a good review of a game, they act like its a shock. If a bad review, they act like its expected. The problem is that a look through their reviews doesn't suggest that much difference in game quality vs. the Nintendo DS which they are careful to never say a bad word about. They also seem real careful about making comments about another big company. For example, its funny how a news segment about a certain big company hiring people to change Wikipedia on AOTS (1/25/2007) turns into a segment attacking Wikipedia and claming its about to fail supported by the united opinion of two experts brought in.

There is also a strange tendency to bash adapted from anime games that "just happen" by chance to be running at Warner's Cartoon Network. I mean the games are usually no good, but they go out of their way to bash the shows themselves. They did the same thing with the family guy game and were even more explicit in bashing Cartoon Network.

To me, even if the bashing is intentional it doesn't matter much. I think they want xplay dead as a show anyway and are running it into the ground by showing it back to back every night. I'm guessing that AOTS and xplay get cancelled because of "ratings" right around the time they shut down the current studio and move everything up to where E! is. I would actually kind of doubt that there is even studio space up there for those shows if they did move. 12.96.162.45 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, X-Play is the highest rated show by far on G4, i doubt it gets canceled. 65.90.51.40 06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

X-play and AOTS are really the only two shows on G4 now maybe there's a little bit of cinimatech here and there but that's it...

sony isnt really the platform that is bashed. The pc gets burned badly by them. They review high quality games like company of heroes many weeks after release and was barely mentioned while they were like zomg new zelda game.

Everyone knows they have slighted Sony on there shows. Its obvious the way they judge the games. Angelocasio 12:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Infobox?
It seems no matter how I fix it, it always looks deformed.

Mbrstooge 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

G4 is not gaming TV
G4 is just television for junk shows that are supposed to make money. There's hardly anything on the network that deals with games OR tech stuff. There's X-Play, and..maybe Cinematech. That's all. It resembles MTV. It's supposed to be for games, as MTV is supposed to be for music. From what I know, MTV doesn't do all music, music videos, etc. anymore. It's just a channel, like G4, for "popular" things today. I'd rather have TechTV back, at least then I could watch Screensavers and Anime Unleashed again.


 * G4 gave up on gaming a long time ago. The network is in a holding pattern right now while the executives at the E! network decide what they want to do with it. Thats why they are running COPS so much. Your probably not going to like what they come up with. Enjoy X-Play as the last gasp of a really great network (TechTV). I wish it could be 1998-1999 forever but its over. 63.3.5.2 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I wish the'd take away all the shows like the man show, cheaters, cops, star treak, street fury, and everything else that has nothing to do with gaming I sort of think that the "TV for gamers" part ended a little while after the merge with Tech TV when they started adding other shows. I mean X-play is fine and so are all the other shows that are about video games, but they're not on that often...I wish for the old G4.

how do they figute street fury and cheaters are something that people who like games and tech are gonna like that? Those shows make no sense at all.

The only re-run shows they have that are actually good is the two Star Treks, but come on, it's star trek. Plus, they're not the only channel running it, infact I see it all the time on SpikeTv

They still run Attck of the Show though. It keeps the old G4 alive. Even if it is now just a zombie75.121.36.237 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

G4 Studios being closed down
http://www.g4rewind.com/2007/03/confirmed_g4_studios_to_close.html. The article needs to be updated to reflect the new info. --SU182 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another interesting thing is that right now there are no schedules given at the g4 website past March 11th (next sunday). 12.96.162.45 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Stuff
Does anyone know if this will be an ongoing show or a one-time thing. It sounds like a half-hour commerical where they give sponsored items away to viewers. Its also getting a half-hour of the ATOS timeslot and following a "free stuff" episode of ATOS. Being cynical, I'm also wondering if this is a try-out for changing the format of ATOS into something like an infomerical. 12.96.162.45 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is for the summer time only.

Comcast Channels
G4 is channel 219, what is everyone else watching? 24.218.135.18 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Charter Basic Cable
Channel 75 (G4) has not been working on basic cable since September 12, 2007. last time it worked was on September 11th.12.127.178.158 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

G4 not found on Dish Network
Today I did a search for G4 on Dish Network's television programming and it ended up that it was nowhere to be seen. I even did a search for it with the search feature but no results had come up. At all. I have no online references for this but I feel that somebody needs to find a reference for it and update the page for it to no longer be associated with Dish. --69.19.254.215 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:G4TV.png
Image:G4TV.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to TechTV?
My DirecTV guide now lists G4 as TechTV again..was the channel name changed again? -Karaku (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Man Show is gone from G4
It is true that "The Man Show" has left the G4 lineup in favor of the encore airings of Attack of the Show, X-Play & Ninja Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.220.220 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

X-play replacing Attack of the show! ?
X-play started as a review show now it tries to give news and all sorts of other crap. It only runs two reviews per show now. Do you think this is G4 trying to eliminate the need for Attack and then replace it with another retarded show?75.121.36.237 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

G4 rewind block
Starting June 2nd, The Classics are back!--12.127.178.158 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to add information about this block on the article in its own section. 68.228.223.186 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TV 4 Gamers again?
I only watch during the G4 Rewind block, but have noticed on some network bumpers they have a kind of gamer feel to them and then show the G4 Logo saying TV 4 Gamers. Is this going to be there new slogan over "TV That's Plugged In"? Or can someone who maybe watches outside of the rewind block post if they are using this old/new slogan elsewhere? 68.228.223.186 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Leader/President of G4TV

 * So who is the one in charge of G4TV? I really need to know. It's very important. --Kid Sonic (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pong/G4's early days
I remember, watching Comcast Digital Cable, when this channel first came out. I remember thinking "Oh, boy! What can a channel called G4 have, it sounds like a tech channel!", and I was about 8-9. I'm currently 15 now. Now, I used Firefox's search function to look for anything that mentions Pong. The reason I did this was because of the pong game that was continually played over and over during the first few weeks of the channel's (testing?) development before any shows were added. This is defiantly notable, as this was all that was shown during the first weeks of the channel. Any comments or reasons to remove this section? --Scouto2 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheat on G4
where's cheat, it's been on since G4 launch in 2002 & before G4 merge with Tech Tv in 2004. where did it go?75.28.93.134 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New programming
Why do they show cops and cheaters? That just made me not want to watch it anymore. I used to love it when it was just Xplay, Attack of the show, and cheat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flootures (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * COPS reruns are what a network shows when its out of money. Cheaters is what a network shows when it has no pride left at all. The network is in a trap. It can't spend any money because of its low ratings. And it can't improve its ratings without spending money. 70.234.228.68 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comcast is going bankrupt so they canceled most of the original shows and are slowly laying off the airstaff in leiu of off network re-runs of reality shows and old movies. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

criticism section tags
The reasoning behind the multiple tags on the crticism section needs to be elaborated. There needs to be an elaboration on what in the section is considered NPOV, why specifically the sources in the section should be considered invalid and what exactly in the section constitutes original research. 70.234.229.198 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a first pass, the self-published sources tag seems invalid. The sources used in the section seem to all be mainstream sources which are not self-published. The only one that might be questioned is the 411mania.com history of G4. But (a) 411mania.com has been around since 1996 (b) the items cited were in columns produced for the site (c) The material quoted was within a column written for the site. There needs to be a reasonable justification presented of why any of the citations in the section should be considered self-published. 70.234.252.110 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay well if they're notable mainstream sources and not forums or blogs, leave them in. I just usually like to discourage criticism sections because it opens the article up to biased POV pushing weasel words and original research, (an example of this is the large unsourced section I removed from Fuse TV last month). That doesn't seem to be be the case here though. But some seem to have strong hatred for G4 since Comcast took it over and re-formatted it into a general entertainment channel, and especially after the TechTV merger, that's why I was worried. I guess I jumped the gun with the excessive tags, so I removed them. Case closed. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cops and Cheaters as a percentage of total airtime on G4
Measuring the schedule for the Week of May 11, 2009 - 27.6% of G4's total airtime is now COPS or Cheaters. There were 22 hours of COPS and 24.5 hours of Cheaters shown that week. 66.226.193.82 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Who carries g4 hd
I see on the main page that AT&T U-verse and cablevision are the only two companies that carry this channel in hd. I called Dish Network today (2/2/2010)and they said that they don't carry it. They don't know if or when they will. Are there any other companies that do carry this in hd? if so, please be sure to update this, or let us know that your company doesn't. Micro5797 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The channel is going off-air
Yeah...so just Google it I'm too upset to find the source.Sean (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does RoosterTeeth count as a source? I just found out from them that G4 will be no more in 2013. :( - PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one on examiner but wikipedia has blocked it so I guess its not an acceptable source.FusionLord (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox and the template
Since there seems to be an ongoing dispute about the usage of the template in this article, here are specific guidelines about the usage of the  template in infoboxes, with emphasis on articles about television and television channels: Template:Infobox television channel and my request for clarification at  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Similarites to Spike?
Should it be mentioned that it's similar to Spike? I mean take a look at the shows.

See, Spike is absolutely intended for male viewers and just look at the shows. Totally Outrageous Behavior (which is basically the same as World's Amazing Videos and Most Amazing Cop Videos), The Man Show, and I'm pretty sure it's the only other channel that runs reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation besides Spike.


 * Just for the record, BBC America also shows ST:TNG Karinagw (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Esquire Channel Lineup
- Jimmy Fallon reruns - reruns of "party down" - Failed Starz programming - "How I rock it" - An MTV style show on the personal style of male celebrities with Baron Davis. Six Episode commitment - “Risky Listing,” - Another generic real estate agent show with the hook being that its about bars and clubs. Six Episode commitment - "Knife Fight" - Another cooking competition show with an obviously tiny budget. - "The Getaway" - Anthony Bourdain produced celebrity travel show. Ten hour commitment.

No identity for the network. Apparently a tiny launch budget. And a curious tendancy to stay among the "family" for the programming. This isn't much more than the old G4 budget redirected into really generic programming.

My guess is that the channel is going to become a dumping ground for the programming of the networks in its "group" if it doesn't get sold first. 70.234.245.226 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Just reading this lineup is making me depressed. G4 was never amazing, but it was still the best place to get news on Consumer Electronics that wasn't internet-based (the one thing Spike doesn't have). I really see no target audience in the lineup; let alone "For Metrosexuals". It seems to be more "throw it at the wall and see what sticks", except the wall is covered in oil slick. Goodnight, sweet prince. Smortypi (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is probably not the best place to discuss opinions about the channel, but to discuss ways to improve the article. :/  Please see WP:FORUM Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The intent was/is placeholder information/discussion related to the esquire channel which would presumably eventually go into the new article on the channel when it is created. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Newly added: Psych, Burn Notice, Parks and Recreation. More reruns.

Jimmy Fallon will be done on a one-week delay which is really weird.

American Field Trip (Six Episodes): An upscale version of what Larry the Cable Guy does on the history channel with odd travel to see America.

Ninja Warrior will continue to be a core offering of the network. They will now launch the Network around a new season of American Ninja Warrior this summer with no promotional budget (already spent), no media attention at the worst possible time of the year with no carry-over viewers at all. 70.234.237.246 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

future of the article
Rather than this article being "moved" to Esquire Network, I think a new article should be created for Esquire Network at the appropriate time. This is what has been done in the past for channel re-launches such as the Oprah Network. The G4 information is historically valuable, but not really all that meaningful to something describing the Esquire Network. 70.234.236.191 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this user. G4's article should stay and a new 'Esquire Network' article should be created to reflect that network, like TechTV, G4techTV and G4 all have their own articles because they are all valuable in their own ways. Nhlarry (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"My intentions"
are obvious. To "make sense" of the tag, click the links on it, then read the lead section and summary style guidelines. --Niemti (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:The Esquire Network Logo.png
In the article it has a pic of the new Esquire logo and in the box it says-Launch announcement and probable on air logo for Esquire network. When I clicked the Esquire logo file the source is a link to a blog named Idea Peepshow. Doesn't probable mean this is just a guess of what the network logo will look like? I clicked the link in the file of the Esquire logo and the logo comes from a blog that says 6 hilarious and free show ideas for the new Esquire network. I'm not sure a blog,much less one that is listing free show ideas is a reputable place to get a logo,since it seems they guessed or made the logo up. Is it ok If I remove the Esquire logo? The esquire network doesn't even have a launch date yet, it keeps getting delayed. And how can Wikipedia have a logo for a network that does not even exist yet?--BeckiGreen (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The network has a pre-launch website with logos (tv.esquire.com). They have also shown logos on broadcast television. I agree that a blog is not a proper source for the logo, but the network certainly already exists to a point where Wikipedia can have a logo (from a proper source) to represent it. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stated concerns on the editor's talkpage; logo has been used on-air and in all seriousness, I didn't care at all for the content of the article, just finding the correct logo image in a good image quantity; I only stated the source under proper fair-use disclosures. Also, under our guidelines, text is generally considered public domain in the first place, and though the name and trademark are copyrighted, the actual letters aren't, so it doesn't matter as it'll eventually be under a PD-textlogo license anyways.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is the logo is identified as the probable logo, and no one has presented a definitive source for the actual logo. Per WP:OR and WP:RS, until someone does, the logo stays out.  There's no rush.  --Drmargi (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I can agree with that, especially seeming as NBC itself seems to have no rush launching the channel at all ('summer' might as well be September 21st at this point judging from their vagueness about a launch date).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And just for the record even though I was off by two extra days, I was right, it's the 23rd. "Rush to launch" would be an extreme exaggeration.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we create a new Page for Esquire Network?
So when the rebrand occurs, should we just mark G4 as defunct and make an entirely. In the G4 infobox we should put replaced by: Esquire Network. If we do separate the channels it would be more organized. --Neji56565onyoutube (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC) ( Contact Me )'' 11:31 26 June 2013 (EDT)

The Message Boards and Website
You guys do know that the message boards and the website are completely seperate? People who use the forum usually do not like the TV show! They should be seperated. And Off-Topic should be seperated, because they are really their own special group.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.34.21 (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Discontinued shows
I added discontinued shows that were previously on G4tv, but have been cancelled. Shows that never made it to G4 weren't added, they can stay on the TechTV page. Good, yes?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthgeek (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 April 2005‎ (UTC)

Errgh...
Sorry to allow it to happen, but a friend who barrowed my laptop, used my account to vandalize the logo here.

Sorry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.126.75 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2005‎ (UTC)

Anime Unleashed is gone
Therefore it is irrelavant to have the CRTC comment on any G4 related Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrunk (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 March 2006‎ (UTC)

Bring back the show list
I liked the shows list :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.52.90 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2006‎ (UTC)

article locked, can someone add this
There is an incomplete list of the launch shows for G4 in 2002 in the article. The full list of all 13 shows is: Arena, Blister, Cheat!, Cinematech, Filter, Game On, G4tv.com, Icons, Judgment Day, Players, Portal, Pulse and Sweat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.162.45 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Tense
This entire article needs to be formatted into the past tense with the exception of information regarding the site (which will remain up). TheGreatZamboni (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't, because the channel is still running.76.226.118.237 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad cite on G4 closure
It's just some post on a message board, and other posts in the same thread say G4 isn't closing but just staying as is (reruns and stuff like that). I suspect the original post was simply someone confusing their provider ceasing to carry G4, rather than the entire network going kaput, so I think the info should be removed from this page, at least until a REAL cite shows up.76.226.102.53 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No official sources, but I do suspect this is where it's going, though it needs to be sourced. There's nothing more clear that they're giving up than airing Airwolf three times a day (no offense to Airwolf fans).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Time Warner dumped it, though currently a customer Q&A on their Facebook page was all I could find on that. That's a big domino and I suspect a few more will end it soon.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Time Warner may have dumped it, but it's still running on Comcast (which makes sense since they own it) and still listed in the cable guide listings as far out as they go.76.226.118.237 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still running on Charter too, I suspected the statement was for Cablevision only and tried to make that clear with the 'NBC didn't say anything about it closing' statement, though the usual IP's tried to blur it into the network shutting down.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Over at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28730829-, a Comcast customer noted his bill mentions G4 will be removed on January 6. Not something that I think can be put in the Wiki, but keep an eye out for something official. Andyross (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is being posted on Comcast bills something will hit the news soon. We should wait till we know more.--LukeBK (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for WWE buyout
The best original source for the negotiations between G4 and WWE was deadline. This article has them recently repeating their earlier claims. [] Does anyone have negative views on the reliability of deadline as a source? By her bio, the reporter of the piece seems a reliable source as she has a long career including working at Investors Business Daily and the Hollywood Reporter covering television. The next best source would be The Pro Wrestling Torch which I think is considered reliable for professional wrestling related news. 108.60.192.150 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I support this being in the article. --LukeBK (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

G4 holdouts
I went looking today and the only place I could find where G4 (and curiously enough G4HD) seem to still be part of the channel lineup is ATT uverse. The schedules show them going out to at least late january. Does anyone know of any other carriers that will continue with it after the 9th of January? Or are there any Uverse customers who have seen drop notices for the channel? 209.163.167.156 (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently no programing is listed past Feb 19th 2014 on their website. We will have to check back to see if the station is finally dead on the 19th. Also g4.tv now directs over to http://tv.esquire.com/. I don't think it will be long before G4 is gone. --LukeBK (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

G4 is going to be taken off the AT&T U-verse channel line-up on February 18, 2014.
I just got a message saying that G4 was going to be taken off the AT&T U-verse channel line-up on February 18, 2014. Do you believe that? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe it currently no programing is listed past Feb 19th 2014 on their website. We will have to check back to see if the station is finally dead on the 18th. Also g4.tv now directs over to http://tv.esquire.com/. I don't think it will be long before G4 is gone. --LukeBK (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC) t
 * www.g4tv.com is still active. They are showing robo schedules out to the 21st consistant with their usual practice of showing them 7 days out. The Uverse TV listings site is showing scheduled programming out to the end of the month (http://uverseonline.att.net/guide). But as far as I've been able to figure out, its not showing anywhere else but uverse now. The removal noices are usually far more authoritative than the programming schedules. If they do end on the 18th at midnight, their last program may ironically be the Lost episode "Dead is dead".


 * On another note, Esquire TV is supposedly drawing average prime time viewership in the 50k range. I think its drawing worse ratings than G4 was before it started its final downward spiral. 75.20.228.222 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They use to show listings 30 days out now its down to 7 days and that is what surprised me. We should keep a close eye on it as I expect to see it go off the air soon. It has to be costing more to run this for just Uvers than they are getting from them. --LukeBK (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Back in 2009, they were charging $.08 per month per subscriber (8 cents). Using the carriage numbers in the article, that means they were bringing in a gross of maybe 58 million dollars in cable fees a year ago back in August. If everyone on Uverse was getting the channel (they are not but lets assume it), they would bring in about 3.8 million per year. These days, their costs are mostly syndication fees on the programs they dont own or co-own (I think that is Heroes, Marvel Anime and Lost). They probably only still have that syndicated programming because of signing long-term deals they can't get out of. The costs of actually running the station aside from programming costs are very, very low. But ignoring my long aside into the business costs, your right. It has to go off the air soon. 108.60.192.150 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I bet it still costs more then 3.8 million. There are still a few people on staff to run the equipment and create the programing. Add in the cost of the syndication I bet it costs over 4 million every year. Any day now G4 will be dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is G4 still on uverse?
The online uverse guide now shows programming on G4 out to March 9th. 75.17.125.171 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * An update, uverse is now listing programming out to May 14th. 69.198.25.2 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Still inexplicably going on. Uverse lists programming out to August 1st. 184.63.149.199 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

When will the G4 channel shut down for good?
Now that the G4 channel is slowly winding down operations, exactly when will it shut down for good? Please give me a possible estimate, all right? This is very important. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As of September 1, 2014 they seem to have lost all their syndicated programming with the exception of "Blade" and X-Men. (in Particular Lost and Heroes). The G4 website guide shows programming out to the 12th. The Uverse programming guide shows content out to the 19th of september. The only way I know of to track it is through the uverse programming guide and the G4 website. I can't find anywhere its running aside from uverse. My guess would be that it will continue operation until the carriage agreement with uverse runs out. But other zombie channels (like soapnet) lasted a real long time beyond any reason for them to exist. Minus the syndication contracts, their operating costs are now extremely small. The only way I know of to track it is to closely watch the uverse programming guide and to check the G4 website. I used to do this on a regular basis, but this has dragged on so long that I mostly gave up doing it. 75.17.124.149 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The months, days and years do not belong in the author section of the reference. They belong in the date and access date sections.
I tried to explain to some users about making the mistake of adding the months, days and years in the author section of one of the reference articles of the G4 (TV channel) page, but they just won't listen. They are still making the same mistake. Could you please tell them not to do that again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The programs, Electric Playground, Reviews on the Run and Rude Tube, are the wrong programs!
Some of the users keep changing the programs on the G4 (TV channel) page, Bomb Control Afghanistan, Web Soup and Proving Ground, to Electric Playground, Reviews on the Run and Rude Tube. They are the wrong programs! Please stop changing them right now so that we can reach a consensus about this. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Will G4 really shut down for good this Sunday at 11:59 PM Eastern Time?
Will G4 really shut down for good this Sunday at 11:59 PM Eastern Time? I need to know and I need to know now!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well... it's 12:16 Eastern. The channel's still up here. I live in a central time zone though. Devann (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand 12:03 Pacific. Channel's still up. Devann (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please change the closing date from November 30, 2014 to December 31, 2014?
Could you please change the closing date of G4 (TV channel) from November 30, 2014 to December 31, 2014? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Long Lines Cable still haves G4
Long Lines Cable still carriage G4 and you will gonna to see this in this site, Long Lines Cable is not fake, it is true.
 * Might be true, but Rovi (where the listings are grabbed from) doesn't care; that's just their default lineup thrown on the page. We don't source to expirable programming listings.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The guide isn't really useful for the reasons you mentioned. But their channel lineup for zip code 51054 at their site shows G4 as still part of their current service bundle. I also didn't see any outdated or otherwise wrong info in the rest of the service bundle info. 75.17.124.85 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

uverse now shows listings into january for G4
As of today, there are listings out to January 2nd. Assuming a final shutdown date on the thing has never been a good idea. 75.17.125.52 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not if the notice from UverseChannels.com has anything to say about it. Click on the link and read it. http://www.uversechannels.com/national-legal-description AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

final updates
- Uverse's listings now dead-end at 12:00AM. The Rovi listings (long lines cable) continue on, but are obviously incorrect in that they show an episode of Lost as the next program.

- The G4 website also dead ends. Someone inserted a "thank you" in the final schedule listing.

- The final show is described at Uverse as "X-Play Fan Favorite #1" (originally aired Feb 1, 2010) with description: "In honor of X-Play's 1000th episode, G4 presents viewers with the first favorite episode of all time, chosen for the fans by the fans." I don't remember the episode they showed exactly, but I think it was an early techtv episode. 75.17.125.62 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

G4 will be discontinued starting next
X-Play is gone and G4 will discontinued as of now, please, edit the article now. 181.52.162.80 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Change Citation #47's URL
Citation #47 (http://www.g4tv.com/schedule/index.html?datetime=12/31/2014%2015:30%20PM) doesn't show what it needs to, but instead goes to essentially the same page as citation #50. #47 needs to be replaced with https://web.archive.org/web/20141226033624/http://www.g4tv.com/schedule/index.html?datetime=12/31/2014%2015:30%20PM to show what is written in the article. 72.209.157.22 (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

SyFy bought G4's rights?
This is a new, new development as we speak. I just wanted to point it out for others to take with them. http://www.syfygames.com/news Joman66 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Website posts
The use of the word "presumably" is red flag for original research. This is not encyclopedic language and should be removed unless supported by a reliable source. - DinoSlider (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal: G4 Rewind here
G4 Rewind isn't notable, but wolud be worth a merge/redirect here. Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G4 (U.S. TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129041554/http://www.uniontel.net/pdf/Union-PressRelease-G4-Offair.pdf to http://www.uniontel.net/pdf/Union-PressRelease-G4-Offair.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

New owner?
So according to the G4 website's privacy policy and such, the new owner is CS DPS Holdings, a division of Comcast Spectacor. Blair Herter, etc., that's who they work for now.


 * But* it would appear G4 Media LLC (the Comcast-Dish JV) is still listed as the owner of the live trademarks related to G4, X-Play and AOTS. Can someone sort this out?--Aresef (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect shows being listed
Someone keeps adding incorrect information that G4 was owned by NBC and added comedy shows, and adding shows to the programming list both here and on its respective Wikipedia page that never aired on G4. I keep fixing it, and it gets removed. User:Ynkno13 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism & Brigading
I think we've found the source of the vandalism issue. Hawkatana (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, seems likely. Hopefully the protection request gets approved soon. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What incorrect info?
Under the controversy section this is said


 * While her speech received praise from some viewers along with her G4 co-hosts and staff, there was backlash from a large portion of viewers who viewed her comments as a form of retaliation, after they had exposed Frosk as having reported several pieces of incorrect information.

I can't find any reference to incorrect information in the sources provided. Where is this information coming from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.139.68 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely nothing. This is made up nonsense from gamergaters desperately trying to become relevant again, because they can't seem to get the message that they are yesterday's news. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

G4 dying

 * So seems to me g4 is playing defense game here? Why not address whatever the concern is from the viewers? I think protecting the wiki from word changes might not have the effect one is looking for here. Just a thought. 2600:1005:B1DA:C027:B464:9D03:2EB0:B740 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A bunch of whiny manbabies obsessed with a "culture war" that isn't even real throwing a temper-tantrum isn't "concern from the viewers". You can quit sealioning, you're not fooling anyone. --Hawkatana (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * well this age like milk. 184.92.246.119 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So they are sinking faster than the Titanic. Do you still believe that course of action was the right one for the business model? 2600:1702:4800:13B0:702C:B8F1:7B93:8124 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Get woke, go broke. 128.187.116.19 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * G4Canada.svg