Talk:List of HD channels in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Merge
Just merge it and redirect here, i dnt thinkt her emuch informaitont there that revelent here, and when redirect give the reason as the page is jsut advertising for sky+ hd-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be merged. As far as I can tell the only unique information included in the article is a slightly misleading sentence (it refers to the date of the announcement instead of the channel launches) about channels launching October 2008 (remove, there is a Launch Date column), incorrect speculation (remove, there isn't even a reference), a link to a topic on the Sky+ HD Facebook fan page (remove, it's about the new EPG and not HD channels or add the official link given to a relevant section of Sky+ HD) and the Type column (could be included in this article). However I would wait for DarkLight748 to comment, since they have previously undone similar changes and have the most contributions to the article. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will stick the redirect on then, there jsut undoign it as they want ot promote sky hd this is not advertising place, any information that revelent and useful to this article merge in later all content will be preserved in histrohy-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done the redirect and the user udone it so i have restired it. i have left the user a message tellign them why it been done and to bring discussion here about problem so hopefully i dnt need to fix this anymore.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonusballs (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think further discussion is necessary. It makes no sense to treat HD channels as a special case and have them all listed on one page. There are obvious precedents here - channel line-ups on Virgin, Freeview, Freesat and Sky Digital all have separate pages, they are not combined into one massive and unwieldly "List of TV channels in the UK" article. It makes no sense to do that for HD. If anything, such a merge becomes more of an advert for Sky because it just illustrates that other platforms have little HD content. The actions of taking major steps to remove an established and popular article should only follow full discussion and concensus - not just the whims of one individual editor.


 * This is jsut a dublicate of the sky article and this oen there is no revelence to it the other option is it got to AFD-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sky+ HD (and therefore any channels available from a Sky+ HD STB) isn't a separate product/service from Sky Digital, it's a part of it. In fact from the lead sentence of the Sky+ HD article, "to enable high definition channels on Sky Digital to be viewed." Popularity isn't a reason to keep a page, see Notability. In recent weeks I've copied information from this article to List of HD channels on Sky+ HD in order to make it accurate and in some sections complete, so this isn't unwieldy and in fact covers only 1 more active channel (ITV HD) and even then there was manual tuning information on List of HD channels on Sky+ HD. At the moment there are more channels in the Entertainment section alone than there are HD channels on all of the UK services combined. The table is also sortable so channels can be viewed in the order in which they appear on the Sky EPG. Perhaps more time could have been left for discussion but the Merge template has been on the pages since August 2008. Finally, the information hasn't been removed, it's been merged, virtually all of the information has been retained, anything else which you wish to see carried over can be discussed. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. List of channels on Sky Digital does not (and arguably cannot) include HD-specific columns (e.g. percentage of HD/upscaled, etc.) - And the story keeps changing here. First the article gets deleted because "it's just an advert for Sky", then suddenly the article is deleted again "because it's a dublicate". There does not seem to be a genuine attempt to engage in discussion or seek views on the best way forward here. If you wish to delete an article then the correct way to do that is to nominate it for deletion so that a proper discussion can be had - not to just wade in and delete it because you don't think it's necessary and don't feel the need to get, or wait for, opinions that don't agree with your own. By all means let's have the discussion - but discuss FIRST, delete LATER. Bonusballs (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * List of HD channels in the UK does include HD-specific columns though and that is were the page is being merged to. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but nonetheless a single page listing all TV channels of a certain transmission format is clearly not a long-term solution, any more than you'd have one Wikipedia page listing every animal whose name started with the letter B. It's established, and indeed obvious, in the SD arena that it makes most sense to have separate lists of channels by platform, and indeed even to break those lists down into further articles should the lists become huge and unwieldy. What's being proposed here is the equivalent of saying "We're going to list every single TV channel in the UK on one page, and then we'll have a separate column for the channel number on Sky, Virgin, Freeview, Freesat, Tiscali, UPC, Freewire, etc etc etc" - it conveys all the information but it does not make it accessible. If people want to see a list of channels (or indeed HD channels) on a particular platform, then it's clear and obvious that they would want a page with that information and nothing else. The proposal to 'merge' these articles basically throws all the information into one giant page and requires the reader to pick out the bits they want. That doesn't seem very convenient at all. Taking America as an example, you see the obvious convenience of having separate lists per platform - which is why articles like List_of_Dish_Network_channels, List_of_DirecTV_local_channels_with_HD, List_of_Verizon_FiOS_channels, etc, and why closer to home we have List of channels on Virgin TV, List of channels on Freeview, List of channels on Freesat, List of channels on UPC Ireland, List_of_channels_on_Freewire, etc. While a combined article is nice, and the number of HD channels is currently small enough for it to appear deceptively practical right now, it soon will not be and the article would have to be split - and it would be logically split by platform. It simply doesn't make sense to do it any other way, in my view. In any case before any action is taken to delete/merge the List of Sky HD channels article, a proper discussion should be had, with appropriate time given to collect a range of viewpoints and - hopefully - achieve concensus. Just barging ahead and deleting the article is not the way to handle it. I don't think threatening to report people who revert the undiscussed changes in good faith (see ) is helpful either. DarkLight's opinion should be heard too. Let's talk about this properly, like the grown-ups that we are.

Bonusballs (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First off let's be clear, this is a proposed merger not a deletion. Looking at your argument of other stuff exists, the only HD specific example that you have mentioned (List of DirecTV local channels with HD) compares the availability of affiliated HD channels between cities, not a million miles away from this page comparing channel availability between platforms. The other examples that you have given are lists per platform, as you said. The fact is HD channels on Sky do form a part of Sky Digital and not another platform called Sky+ HD, HD channels are clearly labelled on List of channels on Sky Digital as being in HD were applicable. There is absolutely no distinction in the amount of HD content shown, if it simulcasts with an SD channel etc. on the same channel between platforms. There is no need for a list of channels in a certain broadcast format on a certain platform and it seems like content forking and listcruft. You also mentioned size, labelling this page as potentially "unwieldy", there are clear guidelines for the size of articles and compared to the other lists that you mentioned, this page could double in size without problems. If you want to talk long term, then in the future it's likely that being in HD or knowing if a channel uses up-scaling won't be especially notable just as being in 16:9 or using widescreen switching or stretching/zooming isn't today and at some point this page could also end up being merged or otherwise. By the way, there is a List of television stations in the United Kingdom (foreign versions may be found at Lists of television channels) and I agree that it is somewhat impractical for certain tasks. As for Andrewcrawford's actions, Help:Merging explains that "If you think merging something improves the encyclopaedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages." A proposal had been made in August 2008. "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus, or if there is silence, proceed with the merger." There was silence so he did nothing wrong. With regards to DarkLight748, he did not post any kind of edit summary with his edit, since Andrew does not a appear to be a regular contributor to List of HD channels on Sky+ HD he could have perceived that as vandalism and vice versa. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very clear that the additional information provided in List of HD channels on Sky+ HD is not replicated elsewhere and could not easily be so. While List of HD channels in the UK is a fine article, and I firmly believe that it too should remain, it does not convey all the information available in List of HD channels on Sky+ HD and it could not easily do so no matter how much merging is attempted. One example alone is that List of HD channels in the UK has four columns for platform channel numbers, but only one column for 'encryption', assuming that each channel will have the same status on each platform. (Which is already not true, and will only get worse as time goes on.) You probably could fix that, but the end result would be sufficiently unwieldy as to be unworkable. This is not a long term solution, and indeed not even a short term solution as the cracks are beginning to show already. These are some of the reasons why I believe that there is value in having a platform-specific list. Even the List of channels on Sky Digital article does not contain the HD-specific information which is currently in place - and of value - in List of HD channels on Sky+ HD. I see no problem in having both articles available - they BOTH provide a unique and useful purpose. Bonusballs (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What additional information is there that isn't replicated elsewhere? Information on the difference between a simulcast and a separate schedule and information on Penthouse HD which is irrelevant to Sky. By adding a section called Other HD channels all you have done is proved that a merger should be made by completely ignoring the limited scope of that article and entering the scope of this article instead. The encryption section was not incorrect (as far as I know) at the time of your post and the only thing that may have confused you is whether the M pack on Virgin Media is available for free, it is. As it is now, I have added specific package names because as you rightly point out something like Channel 4 HD will break it when it becomes FTA on terrestrial television but probably still FTV on satellite. The Type field was already discussed with regards to adding it here since this is a merger and has now been added. The rest of List of HD channels on Sky+ HD is just a mixture of this page and Sky+ HD. As it is you are the only person who has voiced opposition to the merger because you think it's "unwieldy" when 24% of a table isn't dedicated to Sky. It's not as if List of HD channels on Sky+ HD doesn't have problems, specific encryption packages aren't mentioned, you have Living HD in 2 sections (as confirmed and only in negotiation), references 2 and 6 are for the same article, it contains numerous identical wikilinks that have been cleaned up from similar UK television service lists, parts of parent company names have been removed, ITV HD is promoted as exclusive to Freesat (ITV1 HD starts on 2 December 2009), the sort function on the Date Launched column sorts by day and is therefore useless, the page isn't affiliated with WikiProject British TV channels and it isn't wikilinked in Template:Television in the United Kingdom or List of channels on Sky Digital. Perhaps then, List of HD channels on Sky+ HD is equally unwieldy. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now requested outside assistance and feedback. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your feedback on the problems with the other article is very productive but this is not a battle of "which article is better". Just because an article has a few minor faults doesn't mean that it must be removed/replaced/redirected to your own preferred article. The addition of 'other channels' to the list is in recognition that other HD channels exist and that their status on the Sky platform (e.g. coming or not coming) is of importance to that platform. The encryption column in '.. in the UK' was incorrect as it applied only to satellite and none of the four other platforms which that article covered. In any case, as I say, errors in either article do not add weight to claims of superiority for the other. I think it is relevant, however, if one specific article contains information which is difficult or impossible to coherently represent in a more general article. Altering the general article to include all possible specifics makes the general article unwieldly and diminishes its usefulness. I maintain that the presence of a separate list has value - indeed your recent updates to List of HD channels in the UK appear to have proved that by lifting large amounts of content wholesale from List of HD channels on Sky+ HD including the same mistakes from the original! Specifically - that you copy-and-pasted the text "1. Sky Movies Channels are mainly HD, however there is the occasional SD broadcast, such as 8mm, or the rare SD film." from the Sky+HD article, when in fact '8mm' should be the movie review show '35mm'. For some reason you then linked up '8mm' to the article about the unrelated movie 8mm_(film). If the content in List of HD channels on Sky+ HD is really so unimportant and unnecessary that you propose it redirect to List of HD channels in the UK, why are you going to such lengths to duplicate the article? Andrew's original redirection of the article was performed on the very basis that the 'on Sky+HD' article was itself "dublicating" the 'in the UK' article. Yet now you're just cloning the article - and arguably damaging the article you're copying the content into, by making it even more unwieldy. Again, I see you've made extensive changes now, and are now including the (unrelated) channel subscription information in the 'channel number' column, presumably because there's nowhere else for it. I think this just highlights the point that there is value in separate, detailed articles on a per-platform basis, and EQUAL value in an overview article for comparison. I maintain that both articles have value and should stay. Bonusballs (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Break 1
UNIDENT

Basically your arguement is both shoudl stay which is wrong, everything you have said for the reason to stay is not a good reason both article a ethre same ie dublicates, ther eno point merging this one to the sky one because it about sky this oen covers all so is the best palce for it, any information that would not be suitable for this oen is best cover in the sky hd article. I will also warn you against canvasses again to get support for your arguements. leaving message with users who support your views and tellign thme to joina discussion then breaks consesus and then you are influence the end decision and then no longer are allowing for nutrel point of view. Also i do not keep chanigng why to merge ther eis various reasons it should be merged the main one is it is a dubicate and it was adverting. Sorry i dnt have time to discuss every point i have a 8 day old child to deal with.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I find your arguments baffling. Before this discussion started the articles were quite separate and were not "dublicates" of each other. It is only the large number of edits to the '.. in the UK' article which have occured SINCE THIS DISCUSSION STARTED and which have served to copy most of the content from the '.. on Sky+ HD' article into your preferred article, that has resulted in the duplication. This is merging by the back door - and, I would add, merging DURING a discussion, PRE-EMPTING the discussion's outcome. I do not accept your "warning" of canvassing and once again I believe you are behaving in an intimidatory way towards those who do not share your rather fixed views. Jasmeet himself told you earlier in this discussion that "I would wait for DarkLight748 to comment" - a courtesy which you did not pay him, instead you went ahead and replaced the article with a redirect. I left a message on Darklight's talk page to let him know that this discussion was occuring - I did so as a common courtesy, as he has contributed a substantial amount to the article - as Jasmeet himself points out. ONE message on ONE person's talk page is basic courtesy. Something which I would ask you to show to others in this debate, even if they do not agree with you. Not content with threatening Darklight for reverting your initial undiscussed edits you now seem to be doing the same to me, and again I ask that you show others the courtesy of respecting their points of view and in having an intelligent discussion without making threats. Bonusballs (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said they could nto comment i welcome there opinions, i said yoru lucky i dnt warn you for canvassing as leaving a message on someoen talk page to engage in discussion when they have chossen not to prior when that page ont her ewatchlist and they can see th changes goign on mean you are canvas for yoru own means. i personal dnt care if it merge here or the sky + hd article it fails notable it failed on advertising and it failed on dublication regardless of hte changes maybe by jasmeet o this one it was a dublication of this in either case. i dnt care if it does not get merged but for it not to it has to change the direction of the article to not advertise which you have not be a dublication which it is and make it notable-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew. I again reject your unfounded allegations of canvassing. One neutral message to one interested party does not meet ANY definition of canvassing. See Canvassing which is very clear on the subject. Quote: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they seem intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion ... For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion;" Getting back to the discussion about the article, I feel that the goalposts are shifting again. The first time you removed the article it was because "these are the exactely the same, this page is only advertisign sky hd which is against policy". This is not correct as the pages were not exactly the same - evidenced by the recent 'updating' of the ".. in the UK" article using material sourced from the Sky+HD page. The tone of some paragraphs were, I agree, perhaps not appropriate, but that is not a sufficient reason to remove a long-established article when other less drastic solutions (e.g. editing) were available - and indeed have been done. (It's not "my" article by any means, but I was happy to contribute towards making the tone better.) The "advertising" issue gone, you then redirected the entire article again, saying "all hd channels are covered on the list of sky digital channel no need to dublicate the information and all hd channels are covered on the list of hd channel i". This again is not correct as while all the channels are mentioned in other articles, all the specific, detailed information in this specific article was not available in those more general articles. You stated here "I will stick the redirect on then, there jsut undoign it as they want ot promote sky hd this is not advertising place", which suggests you're not following the rules of Assume_good_faith, and then by this point, several days into this discussion, you redirected the article for a third time stating "no discussion required" - an attitude which, needless to say, I find astonishing and not in keeping with the rules and spirit of Wikipedia at all. Today you are introducing new information again, now claiming that the article is "not notable". If it is not notable now, why did you not say that earlier? You'll forgive me for thinking that this sounds like grasping at straws. A list of channels on a major broadcast platform is clearly notable. The specific details relating to those channels may well be out of place and unwieldly in a more general article. Those reasons and others probably explain why the page you're trying to merge has been in existence, and been actively added to, for more than a year now. The List of HD channels on Sky+ HD article is not an advert, not an unnecessary "dublication", and is clearly notable. In my view there is no reason for it to be removed and as I have maintained all along, I believe that the article has considerable value AS WELL AS your own favoured List of HD channels in the UK article, which I will repeat again, also has considerable value in its own right. In my view, problems with articles are best solved by encouraging people to contribute and fix them, not by removing them entirely with a redirect. Bonusballs (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will repeat again i do not cae about either article i do not favour one ove rth eother, i just go on guidelines and guidelines state that whatg we have here is two areticles that do not past notablity. This article notabilty is another matter, however having tow articles is pushing it. And your arguement is not just, as you ask someone who you know want the article you want ot remain to cintribute to this discussion which makes you canvassing but i assumed good faith that you whree trying to get a better propesective on the issue hence why i never left you a warning for it but it was borderline. but i have long been a believer on here to give people the befenit of hte doubt ther eare a lot of editor who would have went further than i have. You have yet to give reason why it should remain jasmeet has done the best thing get request for outside input then a consesus can be drawn. if noone replies i will put the article up at AFD and it fate will be decided there and you might find other think the same as yoru self that it should stay and it notable but then you have outside views and not people who are invoved or might have a slight fairright they want. please take these up with jasmeet as i really have no time i have a 1 week old baby to look after-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're saying now that NEITHER article is notable? I disagree entirely. The reasons why they should remain? See all the contributions I've made to this discussion so far. I do look forward to other opinions and must admit to being slightly disappointed that nobody else has shared their thoughts so far. Meantime, congratulations on your new baby, and all the best. Bonusballs (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes information has been added from List of HD channels on Sky+ HD, a merger doesn't mean discarding everything from 1 party, it means combining them. By saying that they have duplicate information, we don't mean word for word or it would just be a speedy deletion rather than a merger. I hardly see how it by the back door when it has been mentioned twice within this discussion (in the second post no less), while you yourself argued that some of the information from List of HD channels on Sky+ HD was not replicated elsewhere and have yourself been adding large amounts of new information to List of HD channels on Sky+ HD in an attempt to differentiate from this page. At any rate you don't own the copyright to it and 1 column and 2 notes represent a small minority which is also relevant to this page since the content of each channel does not differ on a per platform basis (especially since the channels with notes are currently exclusive to Sky), where as a large majority is duplicated on both pages. Other channels are not relevant within the scope of List of HD channels on Sky+ HD if you then say there is no indication of the being added to Sky. At any rate the argument that List of HD channels on Sky+ HD contains large errors was not made to show you or it up but to highlight the fact that it is arguably as unwieldy as you think this article is. Your next argument is that Andrew originally sighted that he believed that there it was an advert, Andrew did not actually propose the merger, Pit-yacker did because of duplication. After you noticed Andrew's comment on advertising you changed the way the page was written (moving goal posts?) at which point Andrew pointed out there was duplication (which he later explained was just one of his problems with the article), as I did in the second post by pointing out the lack of unique information and Pit-yacker originally did on 25 August 2008. The only continuous counter argument that you have made to this is that you think this page is unwieldy (solely you opinion) even though you have yet to cite anything in the Wikipedia policy to support this theory and have never actually edited this page. Unlike List of HD channels on Sky+ HD the main table is in the same format from an editors point of view as other lists such as List of channels on Sky Digital. A list of channels on a major broadcast platform is notable, for Sky it's List of channels on Sky Digital so don't bother trying to bring it up again. As I have already said before, you want a list of channels on a platform in the smallest minority of broadcast formats on UK television, this isn't very notable on it's own especially when there is another near identical article covering a larger scope which you are entering. IJA (formerly Ijanderson977) the second largest poster and founder of this article (before List of HD channels on Sky+ HD if it matters to you) has not posted their thoughts either (they have not been personally informed) so as it stands it appears to be 3 for, 1 against. There are 4 main rationales for merging, not all 4 need to be met. Duplicate - Yes, List of HD channels on Sky+ HD duplicates content from here. Overlap - Yes, there is a large overlap. Text - Yes, the pages are short and neither article will require a large expansion in the future, only 5 future HD channels have been announced and only 1/2 are confirmed for Sky. Context - No, List of HD channels on Sky+ HD does not require background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it although List of HD channels on Sky+ HD has some copied background material from Sky+ HD anyway. After much debate this discussion now merely appears to be going around in circles, perhaps it would be wise to wait a day or two to calm down and wait for someone else to post. By the way the Date Launched column still doesn't work correctly since you omitted the 0's e.g. 02 comes before 10 but 10 is then before 2. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For transparencies sake, I now have contacted IJA and Pit-yacker to invite them to join the discussion. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Decision on merger

 * Support the merger' and I Oppose deletion: Most of the information is a duplicate and it'd be easier for the reader to find all the information on one page. I'm rather confused as to what Bonusballs is getting at? I don't understand what his/her argument is. Do you oppose the merger? or what? IJA (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bonusballs is against the merger. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merger: For all the reasons I have given above. List of HD channels in the UK is clearly a generic article which provides a (useful) cross-platform overview but does not (and could not) include the detailed specific information relating to each channel's status on each platform. For that purpose, specific per-platform articles make sense. This is why List of HD channels on Sky+ HD should remain, as it carries more information which is specific to satellite, and to Sky, and which would be out of place in a more generic article. I do have to say that this situation is getting really quite silly - whenever it is pointed out that the Sky article contains specific information which the '.. in the UK' article does not, that information is copied into the UK article. Yesterday more satellite-specific information was added to the Sky article, and again that information has been copied into the UK article - which is perfectly OK of course, although I actually take the view that such a course of action damages the platform neutrality of the UK article, but obviously that's for others to decide. In any case, surely the merging of articles should only occur AFTER a discussion and concensus has been reached, and not DURING it. Nonetheless it is quite bizarre to claim that Article A is a copy or duplicate of Article B, when the very people making those claims are watching for updates to Article A and copying all the new information from Article A to Article B every time. This really is very silly. As I say, The Sky article contains specific and detailed satellite and Sky-based information which does not apply to other platforms and which is not included (currently) in '.. in the UK' and would be very much out of place in such a cross-platform article. For this reason I believe that both articles have value and that both should remain. Bonusballs (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not copy anytihng from anywhere when it gets added i have said fromt eh beginging i do nto care abotu either article only to provide a article that passes wikipedia policies. All the ifnormation you sai that in that valuable is in other aritcles so there nothing to lose formt he article. I merge it becaus ehte article had no oppistion to merge for over a year which is fine to do under wikipedia policy.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that YOU had copied anything, did I? What I said was that it is strange that people say "this article is a duplicate", but they CAUSE that situation by copying all the unique information out of that article and into their preferred article. Currently there is unique, detailed, satellite-specific information in the Sky article which is not duplicated elsewhere. No matter how much you keep saying "All the ifnormation you sai that in that valuable is in other articles" the fact remains that the Sky article has unique content which is not - at the time of writing - duplicated elsewhere. If the content IS then subsequently copied to another article, is that a good enough excuse to remove the original? It doesn't seem terribly logical. It certainly shouldn't be done until the discussion of a merger has been completed, as to do so would be pre-empting the outcome. Bonusballs (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No you didnt iply me but i am sayign it dublicate but i havent copied anything i was jsut trying to make sure oyu udnerstand i never copied anytihng but i said it was dubilcciate for ht reasons below.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are totally right if someone is copying informaiton to make two article the same so they can merge it then yes that is wrong and against policy. However my opinion of them being indentical is not to do witht eh content that is copy over which is part of merger process but it shouldnt have happened jsut now since it in dispute. But the fact the article convey the same information with no real difference to them.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I see your point, I do disagree that there's no real difference. Perhaps at first, true enough, but I think that the Sky article has matured a little following your very valid feedback, I think the tone is now much improved, not at all promotional now, and much more factual. In order to hopefully make the Sky article worthwhile of existing as a standalone article, I yesterday added an average bitrate column - which I think is of unique relevance to satellite - and this afternoon I've added further technical information which I do think is specifically Sky/satellite related, and of particular use and/or interest. I wouldn't want to be seen as wanting to 'own' the Sky article, because I obviously do not, but I think it has a role to play and would obviously be interested in suggestions for further improvement. Bonusballs (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that is usuel bit of informaiton and probally belongs here if it was not for the fact freeview and virign have different btirates, but it certainly should be added to the sky article including the sd channels bitrates.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The article does have information that is useful but it does not pass Notabilty it did fail on advertising (granted it fixed now), it fails ont eh fact it dublicate of List of HD channels in the UK List of channels on Sky Digital Sky+ HD any information that is referenced and applies ot one of those articles should me moved to them. If the article remain it title will have ot be remained as it is slightly advertising.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The details of channels on a major platform is clearly notable and is not advertising any more than 'List of Channels on Freeview', 'List of Channels on Virgin', 'List of Channels on UPC Ireland', 'List of Channels on Dish Network', etc etc etc... Bonusballs (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct channels on a platform are not adverting, but hd channels on sky + hd isthe article should be hd channels on sky digital uk that is mroe acceptable but we can discuss this if the article is kept and nto merged is that ok?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do completely see your point here, and actually I do agree, although technically we'd both be wrong as strictly speaking, the platform hasn't been called "Sky Digital" for many years now - it's just "Sky". Similarly the HD platform's official name really is "Sky+ HD" according to their website. But "List of HD Channels on Sky" or something similar would definitely seem like a better name, and I'd certainly support that, definitely. Bonusballs (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I have to say I had previously thought the articles were virtually duplicates of each other. As it stands the only column on the Sky table that is uniquely relevant to Sky is its EPG position. The other columns are more relevant to non-Sky DSat receivers. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have noticed all the edits to the articles, and I think that they do improve the articles. However the List of HD channels on Sky+ HD article has become confusing and is becoming overwhelming, there is too much information of the page. There is no need for the tuning information, it just overwhelms the list. The whole purpose of the article is to provide a list of HD channels on Sky, so I think that it would be improved by creating 3 lists instead of one massive one. There should be a list of channels on the EPG, with relevant information, such as EPG number, package and type. As well as General broadcast information such as weather its 100% HD and the date it was launched. The second list should contain all channels that have been confirmed to be launching, and channels that are launching, and that are strongly expected to be launching on the Sky platform. However there is no place for speculation on the article, all and entries should be provided with a reference. As for the third list there should be all additional broadcasts, such as ITV HD, along with tuning information and a notes column. As for the ...in the UK article, there is too much information there that has been copied from the Sky Platform article. I'm not am expert but I'd imagine that some broadcast information might vary from platform to platform. As for the latest edits on the page there is no need to duplicate Sky platform information, such as what package is required. On a side note I think that the main Sky+ HD should be split, into one about the PVR and another about HD on Sky. Although it might be better placed to recreated the article into 2 sections, one for each topic. DarkLight748 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would oppose an article on the DVR Features of Sky+ HD, given there is already an article on Sky+, I really don't see the difference other than creating fan-cruft.
 * As for a future channels, this was another issue that I considered mentioning earlier but decided wasn't relevant to the present debate. Lists of future channels probably contravene WP:CRYSTAL, certainly at the very least some of the unsourced or poorly sourced rumours that find their way onto these pages are unencyclopaedic.  I'm minded to say a TV channel doesn't become notable until it launches.
 * As for the third list. Will this contain anything other than ITV HD? Taking a pedantic view, it could be argued that ITV HD is not on Sky Digital at all as it isn't carried on the EPG.  It just happens to be one of a number of other channels you can get.  At which point the article would have no channels.  At your suggestion sounds suspiciously like a HOWTO (see WP:NOTHOWTO). Pit-yacker (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No anything on the lsit about future chanensl comes from realible source wher ethe broadcaster has annocued it where it happens is a another question we got rid of this type of speculation on all the other lists nsad intend to keep it that way only verified channel launches.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merger. Neither article is the same as when the discussion was opened so quit complaining Bonusballs. There is a a note to say that bit rates are taken off satellite, cable does not allow for third party equipment to be connected and figures are not published. Neither first party equipment from Sky or Virgin allow for bit rates to be viewed to my knowledge and I have never used a Freesat (satellite) STB so I can't speak for that platform. Freeview HD does not exist yet. At any rate, bit rates do apply to SD channels and if you feel that they are useful then you should also add them to List of channels on Sky Digital too. If you feel strongly against it's use here then remove it, simple. You've added manual tuning details for a closed system/STB (where channels are automatically added) which are encrypted, that doesn't really make sense. I believe that Sky Digital is now called Sky TV . - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care for your tone or your instructions to "quit complaining", Jasmeet. I'm assuming that we're all intelligent grown-ups and can conduct a discussion in a sensible fashion. Bonusballs (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok this is the last chance for anyone to opppose or suppor the merger if there no more dicssuion i will then put the results up and leave this consensus either for merge or no merger to be left for future users to view and see the decision. Just now it is Merger 4 No merger 1, i aint sure if i can resolve it if not i will get a damin to do it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok this has been oped long enough and plenty of time for all parties to give there vote.

The decision of the vote was 4 for Merge and 1 against so there a consesus to merge now, i will resovle this and then merge the othr one-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Channels
I removed channels referencing Upcoming Channels as this is a speculative page (coinciding with forum gossip) until Digital Spy have been able to confirm the news in a full article (More info). Some examples: - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Club:Scene TV (Spring 2010) - it is now the Summer and the channel hasn't launched.
 * Fashion TV HD (tbc) - UK channel closed on 2 July 2010.
 * Nickelodeon HD (tbc) - "A Nickelodeon UK spokesman told Digital Spy that the broadcaster currently has "no plans" to make the channel available"

Just information: Comedy Central HD is launching on Sky Platform on 9th August 2010 Stephen Howe (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound quality
In the table which shows what proportion of each channel is HD/upscaled SD, would it not be appropriate to include information about whether 2.0 or 5.1 channel audio is used? Also, what proportion of 5.1 audio is really only stereo with the other channels silent? 14:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51kwad (talk • contribs)

Defunct
How can most of the HD channels that are available on certain platforms be in the defunct HD list such as Channel 4HD on Freeivew [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.193.59 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * because they where test channels whilst hd was trailed on freeview so the test channels closed down then the full channesl laucnhed later on Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

HD channels section
Why have the boxes of Freesat, Freeview, Sky and Virgin TV been taken away from the HD channels section? Someone should put them back. Wonderwizard (talk) 15:48, March 20 2013 (UTC)
 * Following a number of AfD discussions, such as Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky and Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups, all lists of channels for individual service providers were deleted. Lists of channels in a market were kept, e.g. Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) and Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York. This article being a list in a market but also having featured providers was a grey area, the most relevant discussion is Talk:List of television stations in the United Kingdom and Reinserting Company Channel Lineups, if you have any further comments they might be more noticed in the latter. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)