Talk:The Unloved

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance level[edit]

Not that it matters, really, but in the general scheme of things this one-off drama is pretty low importance. Top is reserved for infamous shows. If this becomes a household title in years to come, then fair enough. The JPStalk to me 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 on demand[edit]

I've just removed the 4 on demand link because I don't believe it is necessary to include it. I have yet to see another similar Wikipedia article where 4od/BBC iPlayer/ITV player links have been added, and as the shows are only available temporarily it would seem pretty pointless to me. Any comments folks? TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to remove it when it's no longer available, instead of complaining now when it's up for a whole month after the original broadcast...
Just because people haven't had the sense to link to things elsewhere is no excuse for continually deliberately omitting links to the only place where the whole thing the article is ABOUT can be watched (legally)... It's ridiculous, there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in removing it other than to satisfy your own stubbornness and blind adherence to "tradition"... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you need to read our external links guidelines, particularly the section on Longevity of Links. I stroungly encourage you to take a look at the essay before adding the link again. Linking to a film would probably only be done if it were going to be available on a long term basis (for example, there was a Google Video link for The Third Man for some time, though that also appears to have gone). I don't think a month really counts as long term, and as I have said before, it isn't usually the case that we would link to iPlayer, 4od, etc, for an individual programme. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you need to read it yourself... Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked ("WP:EL YES")
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
The "longevity of links" section doesn't hold to your argument at all, a month is hardly changing "often"... obviously when it's down it won't be any benefit (and easy as hell to remove) but it's adding SIGNIFICANTLY to the article at the moment. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take this discussion to the external links talk page. Although I disagree with you, I think you raise an important issue which needs discussion. As I said, I've not come across an instance of this before and I think we need a few more opinions on this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now open here. Feel free to contribute. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the link expires, there isn't really any WP:EL violation. But you'll just to have to remove it when it expires. Nothing worth edit-warring over really.--Otterathome (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion. I am offering a third opinion as requested at WP:Third opinion. I would note that I have had no previous contact with the editors in this dispute and have not previously edited this article or similar ones, so can be considered neutral in this dispute. Although a link to 4oD could be of benefit to users, it fails a number of the categories from the Links normally to be avoided section at WP:ELNO. I list them here for reference:

::6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below. (here)

☒N 4oD requires registration to view
NO, it does NOT, it is similar to Youtube you only have to view the page and it works... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.
☒N I believe 4oD is only available in the UK
It's a programme that was only shown in the UK, in context that really doesn't apply. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
☒N Windows Media Player is required for DRM reasons. The article is not about the rich media provider, it is about a TV show.
No it isn't, that's only if you download it... Have you even looked at the page? It shows on the actual page within a Flash window. If Flash is a problem (even though the vast majority of web users have it) like it says can easily just add a message... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
☒N As noted by everyone here, it is unlikely to remain available. If you all get fed up with wikipedia it's possible that the outdated link would remain, which is not useful to the encyclopedia.
However it not being linked at all is far more detrimental than the vague and very unlikely possibility of the link not being removed when it no longer works... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the exclusion of a static link to 4oD is not actually a problem - the link to the programme page at Channel 4 contains plenty of links to relevant 4oD content, so anyone who wants to view it can.
It only has one link at the top in a tab in very small writing, and it significantly improves the article to have a link where you can just click to immediately watch it... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this page on my watch list in case the debate continues, but it is clear to me that a direct link to 4oD is in contravention of the consensus on WP:External Links about what is suitable.

I would also note that both of you need to act a bit more reasonably when editing. I would suggest you read WP:BRD, which is my favourite essay on wikipedia at the moment. If you make an edit and it is reverted, stop trying to add it and instead concentrate on the debate on the talk page. If you revert it and the other editor adds it in again, try to rise above it - unless it's vandalism or a BLP-violation then it's not generally worth the effort. Best wishes to both of you, Bigger digger (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Bigger digger has given an excellent explanation of the problems with this link, and I oppose the inclusion of this link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

(from WP:EL YES/WP:ELYES)

The other stuff is in a very general context and not really aimed at this sort of thing, and I replied why it does not fail that stuff - it's quite clear from there that it should stay... it's just simple common sense: it's not doing any harm and it substantially improves the page when people are able to just click a link to watch what the article is ABOUT! It's the only place that the subject of the article exists for the general public so it's important that is linked as for all intents and purposes it IS the subject of the article... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (god I'm really starting to hate this place it's like arguing with soulless robot lawyers)[reply]

Oppose link, as it may set a bad precedent, with maintainability problems. Kittins: a check of your talk page shows a history of being abusive to other editors, such as the PS of your last message. This is not endearing. The JPStalk to me 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so it's a personal thing fine whatever, makes sense, I can't remember if I talked with you before but your page is marked as visited so hmm ok...
I WAS COMMENTING ON WIKIPEDIA IN GENERAL AND THE OBSESSION WITH RULES AND "PRECEDENT" AND SELF-WRITTEN "ESSAYS", despite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kittins, thanks for totally ruining my (I thought) very well presented third opinion!! You're right, I assumed the link was to use the usual 4oD system which downloads a software package onto your PC. My mistake, sorry. However, it still struggles with 7, 8 and 16. Wikipedia is a global site, and just as you rally against the Americanisation of some areas, we can't have sections especially for us Brits, the link needs to be accessible by all. It's not such a big deal about the flash, but again it's not ideal. 16 is a big deal. We can't go posting information or links on pages that we know will disappear. It undermines the authoritative nature required of the encyclopedia and is also a headache for maintenance. For those reasons inclusion of the link is dubious at best. The section from WP:ELYES that you block quote specifically says, "if none of the WP:ELNO criteria apply". I hope to have shown that some of the WP:ELNO criteria do apply and therefore the link is not acceptable.
Your argument that the link to the main channel 4 site "only has one link at the top in a tab in very small writing" is a bit strained. To suggest that a major media company like C4 can't design its website to encourage viewing of the video, which contains advertising, is a bit odd. Did you miss the black 4oD box on the right of the page and all the clips and catch-up option at the bottom of the page? A link to the programme page would allow anyone to watch the video with one further click of the mouse, and if they can find their way to this wikipedia article on "The Unloved" they can find their way to the video.
Finally, WP:IAR is generally for situations where the consensus of editors is that a rule should be ignored in order to improve the article, see WP:IAR? The consensus here is leaning towards excluding the link, you are the sole supporter of it. As WP:UIAR suggests: "If consensus favors a given approach, that approach will usually be taken – though you may continue to advocate for a different approach, given that consensus can change. Do not attempt to enforce your views through edit warring; this will sooner or later get you barred from editing."
I pointed out to you that it's only polite to make an edit and if it's reverted not to put it back in, but discuss it on the talk page. It seems you've put the link back in. I will remove it, just once, and hope that you will show the right spirit and not change that, but instead convince me of my wrongs. And yes, sometimes we do mindlessly follow the rules and we need editors like you to shake us out of our monotonous robot lawyering, but sometimes you might be wrong too... Bigger digger (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes I'm wrong, and you created this page and then it was removed and then you reverted it, which would suggest that the default position is to leave it in. However, this is a very new page and consensus is forming against the link. I'll eat some humble pie, but could you, Kittins, accept that the consensus is against this link and find something more productive to do? Molly Johnson needs an article, by the looks of it. Bigger digger (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Unloved. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Unloved&oldid=1208383639"