Category talk:TV channels with British versions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why this does category exist? Perhaps it has some value as "US TV Channel Derivatives in the UK", but even then I can't see much point to it. matturn 07:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information

Most of these inclusions in the article are actually wrong: ESPN ESPNews CNN Headline News CNN Sports Illustrated Court TV TBS (TV network) TV Land All are not viewable in the UK at all.

The European Travel Channel is run by a different company from the US version.

Turner Network Television and The Weather Channel did broadcast in the UK, but both closed around 10 years ago.

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2005 October 14. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found on this log page.

«»Who?¿?^meta 06:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

(Taken From Delete Discussion) Keep It baffling that this has been called U.S. centric. We say channels in the UK, the Americans say "stations". This issue is simply absent from and wholly irrelevant to this case - and I am a regular opponent of U.S centrism. It was created by a user from Southend-on-Sea. This has been nominated before and I am baffled by the passion for deleting it. It is clearly useful to distinguish between local and non-local channels. CalJW 10:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What distinction? CNNi Europe isn't seen in the US (and CNNi North America is poorly available). It is not a US channel. CNN/US is. The same goes for nearly every channel on that list (except for the ones that aren't actually in the UK at all as the anonymous person above pointed out).

I think Fox News is the only channel in the UK that isn't specifically programmed for that market. The channels in the UK might have the same names, logos and other branding elements as some channels in other places, but that doesn't make them something with no indentity of their own. They are local, they have independence, they have differences worth writing about, and they should have their own articles.

In the last two paragraphs you have set out a clear case for keeping this category. I just find it bizarre that you are using those arguments in the opposite cause. CalJW 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 ??? I don't understand your position. Where is the value in linking to articles that describe something similar, but different to what is actually available in the UK? matturn 06:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the channels linked to as being the "base" of the versions are merely versions themselves. What is the "true", "base" Discovery Channel? The US one? No, that doesn't screen a lot of stuff that screens on Discovery Communications channels worldwide that use the name "Discovery". Discovery UK, if a "version" of anything, is a "version" of the pool of Discovery content held on various servers around the globe. A "meta Discovery Channel" if you will, one that Animal Planet UK is also a part of.

Either, there should be a single article covering all Discovery Communications channels worldwide for example, or this overview article should branch out into an article for every variant of every channel name. Neither would fit well into this category, both would fit in a "UK Television Channels" category.

And BTW, is people in the US didn't call channels channels, why would they use the word in the name of so many of them. "Stations" refer to local semi-independant FTA entities, like the ITV companies used to be. matturn 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)