Talk:Channel 4's Comedy Gala

Proposal to merge with Channel 4 Programming Comedy section

While I admire the article's thoroughness and composition, I do not think this one programme is sufficiently noteworthy to merit an independent entry. The programme does not represent a new development by Channel 4 but is part of their long established exploration of different comedy formats. It feels to me like a promotional piece, intended to attribute greater importance to the subject than it genuinely warrants. Once the Comedy Gala has been broadcast it seems unlikely any further developments will occur and this article will quickly become lost, neglected and out of date. Merged into the programming article it would take its proper place as part of the channel's broadcasting history. In this way I think it would have a greater explanatory power than it does as a separate but orphaned article. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if we dismiss the basic fact that every single stand-alone programme on a national network like C4 is considered automatically notable for Wikipedia, this was clearly not a small production. The country's biggest comics in the country's biggest arena, in what the reviewers have confirmed, was correctly billed by C4 as the biggest stand up show in UK history, is a stand-out claim of notability. Becoming 'out of date' is irrelevant, see WP:NTEMP. And this is hardly an orphan article, it is currently linked from 30 articles. This suggestion has no grounding in reality or policy, and I frankly suspect this is the nominator's reaction to not being able to justify his position at Talk:Channel 4#Fundraising. MickMacNee (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Tag removed. Two months is long enough, clearly nobody cares either way. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WebCite links

I notice that these have been reinstated after I removed them. The reasons I removed them were that they were not working (the site was giving SQL errors) but even if they were they make the references far harder to read, as it includes the URL/path, date archived, and "Archived from ..." text. Repeated over all references makes it much harder to pick out the actual information.

At Template:Cite web it says this field is for "if (or in case) the url becomes unavailable", so it would seem premature to use it for references which are very new and unlikely to go away any time soon. Or it could be done as described here, so the information is there but references show only the direct link if it's still working.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is a pre-emptive process, and the links do work. Being hard to read is hardly an issue for this particular article - that should be taken up somewhere else, as I happen to agree that the original link should come first, but that is hardly justification for removing the functionality. Given the increase in pay-walling, nobody can say anything about how long links are going to still be available, and I'm not going to come back every day to audit the refs. And if you just comment them out, then you are taking the gamble that the first reader who finds a broken link is an editor, and can uncomment the links. I'd rather they be 'hard to read' but still exist, than removed. Frankly, all of this is a global issue to be solved in policy and guideline pages. It is not really something to be disputed here, so in absence of any guidance, please follow the normal convention and respect the referencing system used in the original creation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Channel 4's Comedy Gala. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5x6tfPS6K?url=http://www.offthekerb.co.uk/ to http://www.offthekerb.co.uk/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)