Talk:Rodney Bewes

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Rodney Bewes is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

October 2009

What a rubbish picture! He's not even got his eyes open! Come on. WHTTLL was watched by 27 million people. Surely it deserves better than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.65.253 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were only three channels then, and no Internet or computers. (92.7.11.150 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Clarify tag

I've requested clarification for a phrase, "typical northern working class", used in the article; as this WP piece notes, it's a phrase that can bear many connotations. It probably needs some context for the international readership as well. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix: that looks like the best solution.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Rodney Bewes

BeckenhamBear discussed File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg, which the user uploaded, with me and with the admin who removed it. Out of curiosity, here are the discussions: User talk:George Ho#File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg (diff) and User talk:Stephen#File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg (diff). If anyone else can obtain a freely licensed image or an irreplaceable, least profitable non-free image of Bewes, that would be great. Please feel free to comment here. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have options. However, without taking the image to FFD, reinserting-removing-reinserting cycle is less than desirable. One of us can ask a question about a file at WP:MCQ, but I've not yet asked about it. Another option: we can leave it tagged as orphaned and then deleted until an undeletion is requested. BTW, another discussion at User talk:BeckenhamBear#File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg (diff). Also, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 11#File:Robert miles photo.jpg. George Ho (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I'm torn. What do you want me to do? Ask a question at MCQ? Take the image to FFD? Or what else? I'll take the image to FFD if you want me to. George Ho (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion about the image, I think the WP:NFCC#1 is subjective at best. However, WP:NFCC#2 is what I'm concerned about. What if BBC has commercial interests in the screenshot itself? The DRV on another file was endorsed because BBC has commercial interests on the screenshot in the US, even when BBC has none in the UK. But I'm uncertain whether I can take that decision as precedent to this image. George Ho (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to wade through reams of procedure, hence a delayed response. Clearly the legal policy from lawyers and the project founders leans toward the idea that we can upload images of the deceased (under certain conditions, and where there is no risk of litigation). The image we’re talking about is compliant. The key problem lies around one clause: “No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Admins need to look up the definition of “available” there is nothing in it to justify letters to whoever, waiting for 4 months or longer, or accumulating proof, keeping diaries, or any of the other prevaricating made up on the spot excuses we have seen. In your view does the written policy need further clarification? Until it is, it will be subject to the winds of opinion on the day as to what it is . A process of fighting random Admins with inconsistent views, for each and every upload is non-productive. Policy needs to be formed to enable standard predictable decision making. Only three things are required here. One: Expansion of the word “available”. Two: a good faith affirmation by the uploader that as far as he is aware a full search for a suitable free image has been conducted, proved fruitless, and the ten points been satisfied. Three: a declarative statement that others be encouraged to replace the image with better… In this case these concepts are enough! This policy does exist on the Wiki in places., but it’s not tied into this specific issue well enough in a fool-proof concrete way. So is this, then, the strategy we should undertake; an MCQ or is there better? I prefer better if possible. Forgive the patronising tone, its what I’m beaten down to! --BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to explicitly clarify/modify policy would be seen as either "gaming the system" or bureaucratic or something like that. If neither FFD nor MCQ, why not raise the issue at WT:NFC? George Ho (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone at MCQ can help you better. I have done it but on different images of others, like this one (diff). However, if you prefer a better approach, as said before, WT:NFC can do as well. However, images of deceased persons have been discussed repeatedly, yet consensus is against an extra rule to clarify/supplement WP:NFCI's #10 rule at this time. Or you can ask the admin to reinsert the image and then to take the image to FFD. Or you can take the image to FFD yourself. Or just wait until the image is deleted, so request undeletion at WP:REFUND or deletion review. George Ho (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments re the AA Gill image convinced me, and indeed so it seems the two that took the time to respond to you as they too were sympathetic, in pushing you toward using uploaded as a non-free with permission license. I note your awaiting a response. I especially like the bit "the definition of "reasonable" may vary from person to person and for some it might be closer in meaning to "exhaustive", Astounding, how can you be a Wikipedian and at the same time be illiterate? It harks back to my querying the definition of "available". Let's wait and see what response you get. Meanwhile my Admin has failed to put his head over the parapet since 1 December. How long should we "reasonably" (sic) wait? We need to go to the level that will put an end to this nonsense. That's not gaming the system. Gaming the system is deleting without following the letter of the policy. Best to you. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer gave permission to let us use File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg and its other versions. However, I'm still awaiting the OTRS service to verify the photographer's permission and confirm the authorship, so I figured that using the image is kinda risky at the moment until OTRS validates the permission. George Ho (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broichmore, Explicit closed the FFD as deleting the image. I'm pinging you and Explicit both. Meanwhile, what about the deleted/red-linked image that you reinserted? --George Ho (talk)

He had no right to make his own destructive and prejudicial decision to delete. There is nothing wrong with the policy I quoted for retention.Broichmore (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I didn't unilaterally decide to delete the image, the consensus of the discussion concluded that the image failed to meet the WP:NFCC policy. You are free to take it to WP:DRV if you truly feel my closure was "prejudicial" and "destructive". ℯ xplicit 23:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodney Bewes. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120304233645/http://www.rbooks.co.uk/author.aspx?id=13007 to http://www.rbooks.co.uk/author.aspx?id=13007

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeats

James Bolam denied having the ability to block repeats of "The Likely Lads". (86.133.84.107 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

It depends on the contracts. I've heard it alleged that, in the late 1980s, Martin Shaw wouldn't give permission for repeats of The Professionals, because the bubble-perm and the shoulder holster weren't good for his new image, even though Gordon Jackson needed the money. If true, it says nothing good about Martin Shaw. At the same time, John Thaw was complaining that Thames kept repeating The Sweeney, because it still got good audiences, and therefore advertising revenue, and didn't cost anything since it was made by Euston Films on a 'cinema' and not a 'television' contract, which meant the actors took a higher upfront fee and gave up repeat rights. The Professionals was made by LWT and I don't know what the contracts were like. A BBC videotape comedy like The Likely Lads and Whatever Happened... probably was made on a contract that prepaid the stars for limited repeats (like one or two in a couple of years) and required consent and payment for any further repeats after that. But, when Bewes made this complaint, BBC2 had repeated the whole of Whatever Happened... just a few years earlier. (I remember watching it.) Perhaps they wanted to keep repeating it, like Dad's Army, and Bolam said no. I don't know. It seems unlikely that Bolam was making so much money he just wasn't interested, but actors hate typecasting and perhaps he had some 'bubble-perm' objection to the Terry Collier character. Perhaps he's even annoyed that the street where Terry is seen failing to catch the bus in the Whatever... title sequence is now named Bolam Drive in his honour. The vanity of actors is a thing apart. Not long after Bewes' complaint, I think there were BBC4 repeats. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, was it "The Likely Lads" or "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?" whose repeats may or may not have been blocked for a while. The former is now half-forgotten, the latter is now being frequently repeated on the Yesterday channel. PatGallacher (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the repeats appear after Rodney Bewes died? That's hardly proof that nobody was trying to shaft him; if anything it's the opposite. 81.102.25.109 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]