Talk:YouView

2009 observations

“The key concept is that it is not restricted to any one provider or set of providers as is usual with similar services offered by mainstream consumer electronic companies.”

This is not the case; the proposal documents outline a Joint Venture which will act as a gatekeeper to the service. Moreover, membership of the joint venture will both be limited to those who can meet certain financial terms and also be potentially limited by size to prevent divergence from its “PSB principles”.Nevalicori(talk)10:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 POV

The article clearly biased.—Precedingunsignedcomment added by82.43.21.26(talk)15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BT advertorial

YouView from BT

Subscribers to BT Broadband are able to access additional content through the BT Vision Player, along with additional Linear channels. These are available at an additional cost.

A free Humax YouView Box will be provided, with a £49 connection and delivery charge. BT director Alex Green said: "This is a fantastic offer. Customers will now be able to enjoy BT's super-fast fibre broadband with a YouView box and TV Essential pack all for £18 per month."

Please ensure all such advertorial crap is immediately deleted.— Precedingunsignedcomment added by86.170.99.196(talk)11:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Question deleted. Gwatuk(talk)14:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Freeview Connect

Article surely needs to mention the new Freeview Connect project? (http:// bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27717382) Adsbenham(talk)17:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link onYouView.Please take a moment to reviewmy 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:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/20100520041129/http://online.wsj:80/article/BT-CO-20100517-703564.htmltohttp://online.wsj /article/BT-CO-20100517-703564.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thecheckedparameter below totrueto 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 byInternetArchiveBot.No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verificationusing the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permissionto delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfCbefore 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}19:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of date

A lot of the content here is seriously out-of-date; the article is replete with onservations of the form "X will happen in August, 2010". And there's way too much timeline stuff about the early history of this platform.

The article is too long.

The article lacks a concise explanation of what the platform consists of, now, today.MrDemeanour(talk)17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Added information for greater clarity"

@Zhu Haifeng:Thank you for your contributions to this article. I appreciate that (unlike some editors) you add an edit summary to your edits. May I ask, however, that you refrain from using such a generic text for your edit summaries? The fact that you can summarize so many completely different edits with the exact same summary should be enough to show that the summary lacks sufficient information to help a reviewer know what the edit is about.

Also, "Added information" is text that trolls and spammers often use to summarize their edits. When I see a summary like that, I am compelled to look at the diffs to see what has actually been done to the article. That is, these generic edit summaries are creating work for reviewers. Could you please compose edit summaries that actually summarize your edit? Thanks.MrDemeanour(talk)11:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Arqiva no longer a partner in youview

I've never edited Wikipedia so I've no idea how, but I noticed an inaccuracy that maybe somebody can be bothered to correct. Arqiva pulled out of YouView in 2022, which I happened to know as I work for them. this is the best source I can find from a quick search:https:// telcotitans /btwatch/bt-and-talktalk-footing-the-youview-bill-as-losses-mount-arqiva-exits/4326.article81.154.0.153(talk)09:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)