Talk:EU launches channel on YouTube

not ready

1. first paragraph is barely intelligible
2. don't use inline links
3. please see WN:SG for help styling this article.

--SVTCobra 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- ready - 1st para seems better now, the only problem might be the hyperbole in the last phrase - sexy materials - but OK in the context

? less sexy

Where on earth does the "less sexy" bit come from? We're trying to be serious here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

- IMHO it refer to the the famost clip on the EU You Tube (art from BBC) - some treat it as light porn

Pls.

Pls. improve it, to reach your standards. I do not see how to get better (and I'll be since now for 1 week off-line) -- Alexandr Snajdar 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe better heading

Original reporting notes

...are missing on this article! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned it up

I tried to clean this article up - see the edit summary. I would be glad if someone else could add some content to it, if applicable. Otherwise, it might need some more cleanup/editing.

This article should not have been {{publish}}ed! --Florian Prischl 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work on that, Florian. That was a job-and-a-half! I had a go at the sentence that was troubling you. Jcart1534 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV obsession

If you look at the original, it is not about wrong light porn as it described at the British article (taken erroneously now as a source).

It is just about the success of the EU programs promotion via video online.

But by the obsession of the NPOV, the resume of the most of WIKINEWS is just compilation or citing others news - and repeating others opinion.

Edit request 01/02/2020

{{Edit protected}} Hello. File:Berlaymont 557 AL.jpg has been undeleted since the advent of Belgian FOP in July 2016. Perhaps the "Missing image" indicator can now be removed and the image reinstated. Thanks JWilz12345 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringinng this to otice, @JWilz12345:! Did you happen to randomly find this file was undeleted? Or did you use some scripts? If you find more, please let me know, I will fix those too!
•–• 05:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually @Acagastya:, the Commons file still lists the Wikinews link of this article, even if the inserted image here was hidden. Perhaps randomly as I was scouring for some other images of Belgian architecture and sculptures that weren't restored even if FOP had introduced in Belgium (I assume due to oversight). JWilz12345 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I guess with some careful thought, one can come up with the scripts. Thanks again, @JWilz12345:.
•–• 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This was deliberately designed into the {{missing image}} template, that there would still be a link from the article to the missing image, exactly so that the article would show up in a list of pages referencing the image. Good to know it works. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)