Talk:TVCatchup

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Would it be premature to change present tense to past tense in this article? 89.102.4.222 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be. Though I've heard a lot of discussion on forums saying that it's doubted they'll come back because BBC, ITV and Ch4 are already developing a similar 'all-in-one' service (called Kangeroo). I think it's best to just leave it as it is at the moment.. londonsista | ^Prod 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe the Kangaroo service (to be correctly named and promoted in late 2008) will either be subscription based or a pay per download service, similar to what the BBC is doing with apple iTunes. Wiki-kml (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link removed by Beetstra

TVCatchup's links to its Lawyers are an important part of this page and as such shouldn't be removed as it lends credibility to the service which has been fought over in court. Also TVCatchup is a non-profit organisation due to the nature of its service.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.199.200 (talk • contribs)

Sure, that is all fine, but please have a good look at our conflict of interest guideline and our business FAQ. I have now protected the article, seen there are already several socks here trying to own the article. Please discuss here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a protection notice template on the page. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyCanute

Having being a long time follower of TVCatchup and Zattoo watching internet TV grow, I find your edits incredible and without substance, it is widely known that TVCatchup withdrew its service and is also quoted in the notice following so I am slightly concerned as to true motives in editing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.238.101 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are using data from material in cited references. They are fully supported by numerous published items. According to these, while TVCatchup withdrew its service, it was 'forced' to do so by the actions of broadcasters and its hosting provider. The references all state the same. The material on Wikipedia must be referenced: it is not a place for companies and their supporters to publish material in the way that they would best like to be represented. There is a quite a lot of unreferenced material on this page that ought to be removed but I have left it for now and placed a citations banner. However, I have undone very recent edits, which are unsupported with references, including those mentioning TVCatchup's proceedings against broadcasters. I'm not disputing the fact but there are no references given for it. The BBC's correspondence with TVCatchup is referenced. That was deleted but I have now reinstated it. I hope that explains my motivations. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plain true facts are staring you in the face, yes the BBC did contact TVCatchup that is common knowledge and on that basis TVCatchup withdrew its service. Yes I am a supporter of the service and I work in the industry (not for TVCatchup I may add); it's just I don't like to see the public misrepresented by some sensationalised media reporting. Otherwise according to some Russian media Jesus is alive and well in Russia, are you going to report that as fact as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.238.101 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the BBC did contact TVCatchup, there is no reason for deleting the statement from the article, especially when there are references for the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talk • contribs) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channels

Suggest moving these to a separate 'List of...' article with link from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, List of channels on TVCatchup. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately in need of citations

Severe lack of citations and a lot of material that suggests it has been written by people close to the company. This is increasing. I will try to tidy up as much as possible. Please do not add material without citation, in the meantime.FunkyCanute (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyCanute Edit

("20:07, 16 December 2010 FunkyCanute (→Ways to watch the service: removed 'brochure' material" "The website is constantly expanding with other web TV applications being introduced. At the moment") I am trying to find a reason as to why this was edited and the edit seems a bit over zealous as this has been here from the very start and hardly defines "'brochure' material". After watching this article it needs an independent body to look at FunktCanute's Edits as they seem a bit dictatorial to myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.wake (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the feedback. My concern is with ensuring encyclopedic entries. The comment to which you refer is vague and unreferenced (as well as grammatically poor). There is still plenty to add and remove to get this article to Wikipedia standards. I hope that clarifies my approach for you. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you cannot reference every word or phrase otherwise nothing would be written; still it seems you are in charge and no one else has a choice do they?

To be honest, I think with respect the standards you are referring to are of your making and maybe a little objectivity should be used here, because you are clearly looking at it from your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.wake (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view and no original research. In particular, please consider: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." You might wish to illustrate how TV Catchup is constantly expanding, by making specific claims supported by a reliable published source. As I mentioned above, there's plenty of stuff to write about TV Catchup that would give readers of the article information regarding actual events, including product launches and so forth. There are plenty of sources for this information. I have added some referenced material and I intend to add much more over time. Hopefully you can join me in uncovering sources and expanding the article. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate product development from legal issues

The article is a bit of a muddle of legal and product development issues. Perhaps the main focus of the article could be on the product development while a separate section could deal with the legal challenges the company has faced. This way we can clearly see how the company has progressed without the legal bits getting in the way, while anyone who's particularly interested in the legal aspects can quickly reference one separate section. FunkyCanute (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is wise as there are so many misleading reports/spin on the legal aspects of this case that you could not make a clear picture of the case. Take the latest report from Robert Andrews who is known to hate the service and that 'report' is hardly impartial, yet it is quoted here, by yourself I believe. For example the judgement ONLY refers to 3G transmission of mobiles and tablets not Wifi, yet it is reported that all mobile services are illegal and this doesn't fit with the given judgement http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2011/1874.html section 138.

This is the failing of Wikipedia that it is using opinions from reporters and not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewake1962 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the channel line to reflect the same line up as TVCatchup

I would like to propose that the channel line up be changed in the same style as TVCatchup has in its arrangement.

Don't want to change anything just in case Jasmeet becomes upset over his page.

P.S. You are slacking Jasmeet as they added NHK World HD on Sunday and you haven't put it in yet :) edit: Nice to see you are reading this and you have finally added NHK World :)Stevewake1962 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think?Stevewake1962 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channels List

Someone has vandalised this page by removing the channels list.Implyme (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please help! Seeking sources to support the article. Have uncovered several and will begin adding citations. Going to try to get the article to 'Good Article' status. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major copyedit 24 June 2013

In preparation for submission to Good Article review, I have made some major edits.

Expanded article
I've removed a lot of material that is repeated throughout the article.
I've also removed unreferenced material where I have been unable to find sources. I've searched for sources far and wide and have only removed material where there appear to be no sources. I have not removed material for which there are sources, even if they are not cited.
Re-ordering of sections to give due prominence for the main aspects of the article ie the features of the service.
Lead section copyedit as per WP:LEAD
Further reading: links to authoritative sources that provide further information not currently in the article.
External links: official URL; Facebook; Twitter.

FunkyCanute (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of posts of some forum blog according to hearsay

Wikipedia does not allow hearsay on pages and there is no evidence nor reference to removal of posts on the TVCatchup's forums. This page has been tidied up and is in line with Wikipedia's standards now thanks to a huge contribution from FunkyCanute, so let's not undo this good work by adding ones own opinion of things. Referenced facts are good as they give us a historic timeline of events and without these references we could end up with anything here.Implyme (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you bothered to go to the link http://forums.tvcatchup.com/showthread.php?11867-Removal-of-channels-and-addition-of-channels-October-2013&p=96835&viewfull=1#post96835 you would see that posts are being moderated. In future I suggest that you learn to read the source before reverting an edit and thus resulting in an edit war. Fkmd (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did bother and I also took advice re: the revert and it is not only myself that is watching your edits now. And you my friend should learn about referencing correct material as there is no reference to moderating posts in that blog as far as I can see. Thank you for reporting me for an edit war, but it is you who are in the wrong here not me and I strongly suggest you keep to facts when editing and not just your own hearsay...!!! Implyme (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on TVCatchup. 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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]