Talk:Dustbin Baby (film)

Phrasing of content addressing Asperger syndrome

Moved from User talk:J Milburn

Your recent edit to Dustbin Baby (film) added the bold part of the following phrase about a fictional depiction: "At the boarding school, April befriended her roommate Poppy, who suffered from Asperger syndrome." Also, this edit added the following statement about a living person: "Lizzy Clark, who suffers from the condition, auditioned for the part...". When talking about people on the autism spectrum, please avoid using disabling language like "suffers from (autism)". This phrasing needlessly portrays autistic people as victims, and autism itself as negative. These portrayals are harmful to autistic people. The National Autistic Society of the United Kingdom recommends the same, for the same reasons. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, feel free to respond. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember actually considering the phrasing when I added it- I eventually went for "suffers from" because that's what my source article uses, and the BBC, like us, aims for neutrality. What would you recommend as an alternative? J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having seen your edit, no, I don't think I'm happy with the rephrasing... You link me to a partisan pressure group requesting that I take their advice on phrasing? That would be like linking me to Phyllis Schlafly's website when discussing the use of gender pronouns. I think I am more inclined to use the terminology used by the BBC; a trusted, impartial news source, in an article written about the person with AS, including an interview with her and her mother. Do we have guidelines on the subject? Is there any reason I should trust some organisation I've never heard of with a clear motive over the BBC? J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

While the BBC is trusted by many, in this instance, invoking The BBC^TM isn't really appropriate. The "People & Places" section of BBC Shropshire is not an authoritative resource on culturally sensitive wording of content related to autism. Note that Shropshire is, by the project's description, "one of England's most rural and sparsely populated counties" and that this piece was intended for this local audience. I doubt the piece was subject to as rigorous a level of scrutiny as international pieces are: indeed, the writer of the piece describes Asperger syndrome as "rare" and "mild", yet there is a wide variation in reported relative prevalence of conditions on the autism spectrum (see Asperger syndrome#Epidemiology, which begins: "Prevalence estimates vary enormously...") and many people with Asperger syndrome face significant challenges, which renders blanket usage of "mild" inaccurate.

Putting these aside for a moment, let's look at the usage of the phrase "suffers from Asperger syndrome". After stating that Clark "suffers from Asperger syndrome", the writer fails to provide any details as to which aspect of Clark's Asperger syndrome has supposedly caused her to suffer. The assumption in the phrase is that no explanation is necessary because autism necessarily equals suffering. Yet many autistic people have stated that, if given the option, they would not choose to become non-autistic; Temple Grandin is one well-known example. Clark herself states that despite being found "stfage" by some of her peers, that she has "lots of friends who love [her] and support [her].", and she does not mention "suffering" at all. Using the word suffering in this instance is inappropriate.

A neutral, non-judgmental way to talk about people with autism is to simply state that the person is autistic, no more or less. "She has autism", "she is a person with autism", or "she is autistic" are all appropriate. A national autism advocacy group's support for this usage does not render the usage inappropriate. Rather, that the advocacy group is based in the same country as the article and film gives the advocacy group's position more weight.

Are you arguing that we should speak about Clark, specifically, as "suffering from Asperger syndrome", or that the "suffers from" usage is appropriate when speaking about any autistic person? Why? Whatever404 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This sort of language is specifically and explicitly discouraged by our Manual of Style, particularly when applied to people on the autism spectrum. While GAs need not follow Manual of Style guidance on matters other than those listed in WP:WIAGA, Wikipedia guidelines advocate the use of person-first terminology whenever possible, and I would like to see it applied in this article. I'm surprised that the BBC, an organization known for its careful use of language and its concern with accessibility, would use disabling language so carelessly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a few things to reply to here. Firstly, we don't need the abuse of Shropshire (I'm in Cumbria, which is hardly a metropolis, and I know people with Asperger's and autism, thanks...). Secondly, I don't really care what our article about Asperger syndrome says- I didn't ask for a debate with journalists about the nature of the condition. If you have an issue with their usage of the word "suffer" (and it would seem that neither Clark nor her mother had any issue). Again, your use of partisan sources fails to convince me. The BNP is very much a British organisation, but I wouldn't be taking their advice on racial terminology. In answer to your (Whatever404's) final question- yes, I believe we should describe her as suffering from the condition, as that is what the reliable sources have said, and, to the best of our knowledge, that is what she and her family have said. What you're saying is that we should ignore reliable sources and the subject, and instead go with a fringe advocacy group. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the phrase "suffers from" is hardly a fringe position. The U.S. Department of Labor, which is certainly not a fringe advocacy group, indicates that "suffers from", "afflicted with", and "stricken with" are to be avoided. Wikipedia's MOS agrees, as do many mainstream disability organizations. Unless we're giving a direct quote, there's no reason for us to use such language. --Alynna (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus-based provision of the Manual of Style against disabling language was not based on "partisan organizations". Not caring what our article on Asperger syndrome says is not helpful: this is an encyclopedia, and internal consistency is important. Not a single one of the non-BBC sources cited in the article mentions "suffering", and neither does Clark's mother in the BBC interview (she specifically refers to "people with autism"). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the other sources mention it because this is not an article about Asperger syndrome- it's an article about a children's film. AS is one of the many themes addressed. The producers of the film were from the BBC, and the BBC explicitly described one of the actors as "suffering" from AS; this is why they were chosen. The character in the film also clearly "suffers"- Richards's character takes advantage of her by "borrowing" money with no intention of giving it back. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever404 asked me to look in on this thread. This issue isn't a close one. WP:MEDMOS #Careful language clearly says 'Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom'. Wikipedia articles are under no obligation to follow the BBC's style, should it differ. Looking at the source, what appears to have happened is that the source's author first used the unobjectionable phrase "with Asperger syndrome" to describe the character, and then later, I expect purely for variety in wording, used the questionable phrase "suffers from Asperger syndrome" to describe the actor; this hardly counts as an endorsement by the source that "suffers from" is what's needed here. The other style guides mentioned above are quite clear that "suffers from" is not appropriate for describing people with medical conditions. I am glad to see that "suffers from" is currently not present in the article, and suggest that it stay out. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is an article that included interviews with the subject and her mother; if the journalist thought it appropriate to describe Clark as "suffering from" AS (no doubt that was part of the story), surely we're just ignoring the sources in favour of ridiculous PC language if go for the current wording? (Again, Whatever404's canvassing is problematic, but that's another issue). J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject's mother uses the wording "people with autism". It is a stretch to argue that the journalist thought it appropriate to describe Clark as "suffering from" AS—he or she are just as likely to have been careless in the use of language, or perhaps the Beeb's editorial guidelines have no say on the matter. Ours do, however. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to use the exact same wording as our sources, except in direct quotes. The kind with quotation marks around them. And I'm not sure how "has Asperger syndrome" is "ridiculous PC language". --Alynna (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Forcing that over the more common and professional "suffers from Asperger syndrome" is over-the-top PCifying. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Common usage in no way makes something more professional. I apologize if I seem to be stressing this too adamantly, but we have consensus-based editorial guidelines that strongly favor the current wording and strongly discourage the alternative. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'd find many professionals using that language, certainly not in front of their patients. There is no benefit to the reader in using the term "suffering" so why the argument? Colin°^Talk

I strongly disagree with the claim that the wording "suffers from Asperger syndrome" is more professional. It is certainly not common among professionals. A Google Scholar search for that phrase published since 2004 comes up almost dry, with only 8 instances, none of them in sources that are reliable about Asperger syndrome. In contrast, the more neutral phrase "with Asperger syndrome" has 3,840 instances, and is well-represented among reliable professional sources. Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I concede. I'll stick with the current wording. Sorry for the fuss. J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

"Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film": critics is a plural noun, so the word both sits uneasily. I have changed it to Critics responded positively to the film, as did Jaqueline Wilson, ... but several alternatives would be possible: I'd be equally happy with The film was well received by the author and critics alike, Wilson and critics responded positively to the film, Wilson responded well to the film, which received favourable reviews etc etc Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing it, sorry. Would you equally criticise the phrase "both men and women"? Both of them are plural, and the BBC seems OK with it. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Using commercial sales links aas references

• Oppose - WP:ELNO-5 forbids "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." While that policy does not specify footnotes, Common sense dictates that if the 5th-most visited Internet site in the world allows businesses to simply add links that drive traffic to their sites, then what is to stop Play.com or Netflix or Amazon.com or anyone else from adding hundreds or thousands of links as inline citations to home-media section? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Rubbish. They're not "external links", they're citations - and there's nothing wrong with citing a shop for a release date. By the way, edit warring removing the links so that you can keep your preferred version looks pretty disruptive to me. I'll point out that this has gone through Featured article review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive2, where they do a pretty hefty job of looking through the sources, and it wasn't raised as an issue there. Worm^TT 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Wrong. The guideline says that "one should generally avoid" such links, and explicitly notes that "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content". If we're going to talk about common sense, common sense dictates that we should not remove well formatted reliable sources from a featured article, leaving content uncited. Do you have any policy-based objections, here? Perhaps more importantly, do you really have nothing better to be doing? Furthermore, the cycle suggests that the onus is on you to discuss the issue after you are reverted, not to continue reverting until I stop for fear of breaching the 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I couldn't help but notice what's going on and I am not going to choose sides. But out of of respect to two editors that I have looked into as good and responsible editors are going out of line on this one. Violating WP:3RR is not a good thing to do definitely on a featured article it should have been discussed a long time ago. I honestly see both concerns though. Tenebrae's concern is that a source is violating a guideline and Milburn's concern is to keep a featured article that he is involved with as sourced as possible. Now please work together like civilized editors on this talk page for the benefit of both reasons. Which I have noticed Tenebrae being good at in the past and I trust J Milburn being good at that being a administrator and all. Thank you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this (and have stricken a comment above that was probably antagonistic). From my point of view, neither actually violated 3RR - though it certainly doesn't look like WP:BRD was followed. Tenebrae, you mention that other sources exist, yet you have not provided any, I'm surprised that you felt the need to remove the current sources, leaving a citation needed and not suggest any replacement. Worm^TT 16:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was almost a 3RR thank goodness it's probably not considered one. For there has been a report on it which I feel is going too far. If there is anybody who can find sources, Tenebrae does a pretty good job finding one. I can see the concern of there being no sources on a featured article so next time we should definitely find a substitution. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact it's a featured article almost doesn't matter- wandering around removing sources on the grounds of a guideline which explicitly does not apply, and continuing to do so after being shown that it does not apply, sounds like pretty good grounds for a block to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see it that way. He was trying to follow a guideline is a good faith edit, not enough for a block. And you are not not assuming good faith. Now edit warring is a better reason but both of you are guilty of that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that he initially mistakenly thought that he was following policy. That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't, and it certainly doesn't justify his continued edit warring after he was shown how the guideline he was citing did not apply. What do you propose I do instead? Politely explain how wrong he is, then wait for him to say "I know I'm wrong, but I don't care"? Surrrreeeeeee. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the article is now protected, which I don't think anyone wants, does anyone have any real objections to the current version, or can we consider this discussion closed? J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This a discussion about policy in general, not about one specific article. I placed it here only per directions at the RfC page.

Your sarcasm on the Admin Noticeaboard and your uncivil remarks on my talk page go beyond the pale. You have no right to be verbally abusive to other editors, and that includes sarcasm, condescension, nastiness ("Go away") and other remarks of which you are guilty. There is no excuse for that whatsoever. None. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is a discussion about a policy, go and have it on a policy talk page, away from me. If you want to moan about my conduct, do it on my talk page (though I'm certainly allowed to tell disruptive editors to go away and be sarcastic if I want, and if pointing out that you do not understand the page you are citing constitutes "condescension", then that's fine too...). So, back to the important point- does anyone have any real objection to the current version of the article, or can we consider this discussion closed? J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot be sarcastic and nasty on your talk page. Talk pages fall under the same policies and guideline as other pages, and that includes WP:CIVIL. You have no right to belittle, demean, insult or otherwise verbally abuse other editors. Period. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You again appear to have not read what you are referring to. Please reread my comment, and direct any more discussion about my conduct to the appropriate place. No where do I deny that "Talk pages fall under the same policies and guideline as other pages, and that includes WP:CIVIL". Now, could you please answer the question. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please disengage, both of you. This is a content dispute, so let's focus on the content. From what I see, Tenebrae does not think that shopping websites should be used as reliable sources. While I understand that, I have not seen anything in the guidelines that prevent their usage as references. (WP:EL does say to avoid shopping websites, but these links are for a different purpose.) It does not appear that DVD information is readily available in a search engine test, and I would say we can reference the shopping websites with care. If we were including cost and hot deals, that would be a problem. :) I do oppose mentioning the tagline per MOS:FILM#Taglines. Most taglines just are not worth noting, and we should limit mentions to those that have been discussed, not just printed. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying my best. Tenebrae, could you please answer the question? J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking whether the discussion should be closed, that's not up to me. I have shown, however, below, that the pertinent DVD information is indeed available from a journalistic, non-sales site. That would be preferable to a sales site. Is there any reason at this point to insist on directing traffic to those sales sites? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My question was "does anyone have any real objection to the current version of the article"? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion in the thread below. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RS journalistic site

Here is a journalistic citation for the film's release in January 2009 from ITV DVD, and stating if includes a behind-the-scenes video. It also includes an image large enough that you can read the tagline, so now there is no need for the play.com link that was cited for that (and which neither used the phrase in text nor contained a photo large enough to read the tagline, so the play.com cite was gratuitous in any case).

Are there any objections to including this WP:RS cite in lieu of advertising links?

• "Pop A DVD In: Dustbin Baby, PopSugarUK, January 22, 2009. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You want to cite an anonymous blog post by "PopSugarUK"? Right, that's nice. Could you please answer my question above? J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blog??? It's not a blog, it's a major web-magazine for teens and other females. It's a journalistic site run by a cooperation with backing from a major investment bank. If you'd looked at it's About section you would have read:

Since being founded in 2006, Sugar Inc.’s mission has been to entertain and delight its audience by producing insanely addictive content, unmatched shopping experiences and a robust social community. Sugar Inc. is a leading international diversified women's media company with an audience of more than 20m monthly unique visitors across three business segments: original content (PopSugar.com and PopSugar.tv), commerce (ShopStyle.com) and local (FreshGuide.com) with operations in the US, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Sugar Inc. is privately held and backed by world-class investor Sequoia Capital.

Now that we've established that the site is WP:RS, the fact that the review is anonymous is irrelevant in that we're not citing opinion but strictly fractal material.

Again, what is your insistence on these sales sites? Are you involved with the film in some way and stand to benefit from DVD sales? I've noticed that you're by far the most frequent editor here, and created the page, which reads like a paean to this film. You've shown WP:OWN and now you're deliberating mischaracterizing a valid non-sales citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn, would you consider the reference a substitute reliable source, at least to address the ITV DVD bit? Don't respond about anything else, please. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the tagline, which is simply not visible in the play.com cite, but which IS visible in the larger photo of the DVD case here. Also, is the January date of this article really in question?? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I cited a reliable source rather than citing the DVD cover itself. So? And no, it's not in question, so far as I know, but I'd rather not leave swathes of uncited text just because no one has yet challenged it... And Erik, unless you're going to block Tenebrae, no "policing" is required, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not policing, I'm trying to mediate. The conduct and the tone here is getting in the way of discussion about the content. We need to focus on that. It is about whether or not it is appropriate to reference a shopping website. I think it's fair to say that if we can replace a shopping website with a non-shopping one as a reference, we should. That's why I'm asking if you would consider PopSugar a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that "if we can replace a shopping website with a non-shopping one as a reference, we should". We should focus on the reliability of the sources. In any case, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Good search says, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources." Neutrality is a factor, too. I don't think there is any real shift in reliability from one website to another, but there is a shift in neutrality. Another option is to look for yet another source to consider in this discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would simply add that the purpose of a journalistic site is to give factual information vetted by editors for accuracy. The purpose of a sales site is to sell merchandise. To insist that we not use an RS citation and that we must move traffic to a sales site to help this DVD sell ... I'm flabbergasted. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Insisting that the only citation in the world that we're allowed to use in this case are not one but two sites selling this product, when an non-commercial RS citation exists ... that's broken. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no other source that can be used, it is okay to use a shopping website. We do not want to be excessive about it because we want to make as neutral of a presentation as possible. While the existing sources can be sufficient, I think it is a small but constructive change to replace the source. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Or just add it and leave the other alone if it's too much a controversy for some editors to remove that one. At least we can guarantee one's a reliable source. Of course that's just my opinion. Mainly because it's more of a win win situation. Nothing wrong with more than one citation. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jhenderson, that wouldn't solve anything. As far as I can understand it, T's objection is to the current sources being used at all. His edits would suggest that he believes that no source is better than those. No one is disputing the reliability of the current sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is such a mischaracterization. I've supplied a source. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I quoted "It's my opinion." I am not sure of how Tenebrae feels about it at all. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You previously removed all sources, leaving none. I will assume that you were editing with the intention of improving the article, suggesting that you believe the article is better with no sources than with the sources to which you object. Not difficult. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, but thank you for what sounds like a positive note. The fact that I put in citation requests, rather than removing uncited content, obviously indicates I believed a journalistic RS source could be found — as indeed it was. Now, would it be possible to replace the two commercial sites selling the DVD with this journalistic cite? If our whole purpose is to improve the article and give it the best citations possible, then why don't we do that, move on, and not interact with each other anymore.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection, as long as three criteria are met: Firstly, we are certain that this definitely is reliable, secondly, that it contains all information currently sourced elsewhere (so we don't leave anything uncited) and, thirdly, tha it is formatted consistently with the other sources in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a journalistic website for girls and women run by a multinational corporation. It has a professional staff. It confirms the DVD came out in January 2009 -- the exact day in January is hardly critical -- on the ITV DVD label, and contains a behind-the-scenes extra. I don't know if it's critical to give the title of the behind-the-scenes extra. If so, this BBC source gives it. The site also contains the tagline, though I'm not sure we're including it at this point to concerns brought up earlier. So, yes, this citation covers everything pertinent. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. I trust the remaining small details can be resolved without the resumption of the edit war. Courcelles 19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And so we don't end up porting a typo into the article, that source immediately above is by the BBFC, the British Board of Film Classification, not the BBC. Courcelles 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ARBITRARY BREAK Thank you for catching that typo, and thank you for all your efforts on what was clearly a difficult situation with two editors who got off on the wrong foot. I appreciate your steady hand, and I'm sure J Milburn does, too.

Since he wrote on my site a short while ago, "I don't care how this is resolved as long as no information is lost and everything is cited to a decent source," I'd like to solicit opinion on whether I should now go ahead and make the discussed changes: replacing the sales sites with the journalistic site and the BBFC site. Obviously, due to WP:OWN, we don't need J Milburn's permission, but given the heated debate, I'd be more comfortable with a second opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the "commercial" sites and the introduction of the BBFC and magazine sources. I am a tad concerned that the precise date is not noted; would you have an objection to a hidden comment being inserted that the precise release date can be found on the commercial site? This would deal with both of our concerns to a certain extent, and may work as a compromise? J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've no objection to a compromise. And thank you again for your gracious post on my page. It really did help untie the knot in my stomach!   :-)   With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dustbin Baby (film). 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/20121005033525/http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/leisure/entertainment/theatre/features/4049301.Loot_of_laughs/ to http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/leisure/entertainment/theatre/features/4049301.Loot_of_laughs/

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)