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)

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)

Does the prediction of its demise really need to be here?

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)

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?

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

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

Sorry.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.164.29 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my thoughts acactlly. user:khanearl

I agree wholeheartedly. G4 is widely criticized for its focus on celebrities than gaming. --Phil 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Due to a recent story at digg.com [1], 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.164.29 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]