Talk:BBC Canada

message: User:Emarsee, I would ask that you justify your assertion that noting a reliably-sourced promotional campaign for a TV channel in the article about that channel - and in the History section of that article, no less! - is not in line with Wikipedia policy, preferably citing said policy. If you cannot do so, I plan to restore the content in question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do whatever you want.   █ EMARSEE 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional campaign 

message: A cabal of editors have spent more than a year now trying to force the unexplained text "Category B" into the lead of the article.  Their refusal to add any text explaining what this designation means is entirely inexplicable, and their actions seem to be purely disruptive.  Most readers are not familiar with Canadian broadcasting jargon, so either the term has to be explained, or it has to be removed.  Further, if you think this category designation is among the most significant facts about BBC Canada, which it must be if you want it in the very first sentence, then the reason for that needs to be given.
I wait with interest for someone to explain why they want unexplained jargon to appear in the first sentence of an article.  201.220.242.199 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a copyedit. It's a repeater of BBC series (presumably so an ex pat in Regina, Saskatchewan can reminisce over old episodes of Dad's Army or Fawlty Towers) so it should really concentrate on that rather than technical stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Ritchie333, the "unexplained jargon" that the IP user is complaining about was "Category B services", which, as you can see, had its own link (and was thus "explained" after all).  The IP editor has, in my opinion, been engaged in a pattern of disruptive editing all over Wikipedia, using several IP addresses (see my response to the editor on my talk page for more info about this).  In this case, the editor earlier deleted the reference to Category B services, and a reference to "Category 2 services" which was the precursor term.  The technical information about the station (or any station) is encyclopedic, and should be retained.  It may not be needed by everyone who reads the article, but those trying to find that technical information are likely to end up on Wikipedia, and the information should be here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Etamni: Agreed on all counts. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll deal with the content first; I think my question would be "would an average Canadian know exactly what a Category B service was"? That's why I briefly explained the BBC in the lead, which would be over-detailed for a British audience (who could be reasonably expected to know exactly what it stood for) but not necessarily for Canadians. What I thought Category B meant was something vaguely analogous to Appliance classes. If you can assure me it really is common currency and something you'd expect anyone to reasonably understand, it can stay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ritchie333: How about you restore the detailed explanation that was in the History section first, and then we discuss what should or shouldn't be in the lead? Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm not Canadian, I cannot say for sure what someone in Canada would know about Category B services, or the other categories for that matter, but I can say that someone who is trying to find out how this particular channel is categorized is likely to be looking here.  Also, the fact that "Category B services" is notable enough to have its own article (as does Category A services and Category C services), it seems reasonable for this information to be included.  The link to the main article should be sufficient for those who want to know what the term means.  As for the likely original reason for the clarification tag, it was tagged in the lead where "Category B services" was used and again in the article where it was first mentioned that the station was originally licensed as a "Category 2 services" station.  It seems likely that the clarification tag was added to request an explanation why two different terms were used.  As it turns out, Category 2 services was renamed in 2011 and became Category B services.  I had added that explanation, before the IP user reverted the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I'll restate here that it should not be necessary for this article (and presumably every article about a Canadian channel) to extensively explain what Category A services, Category B services, and Category C services are and/or mean; that is what interlinks are for.  It's fine if the text happens to mention something in the history that mirrors those terms, but the lack of that explanation or clarification does not warrant the removal of the term from the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To extensively explain, no.  To explain at all, obviously yes, it is necessary.  186.9.135.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Category B services is confusing, but I take to read it's a classification of specialist or non-mainstream television channels that can have competition; much like lower tiered cable channels anywhere in the world.  has done quite a bit of work on this article and seems to be an expert on Canadian television, so he might want to chip in to the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes.  If you're not going to explain obscure terminology, then including it at all is pointless. 186.9.135.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. The IP user is well aware that blue links take the reader to entire articles where the terms are fully explained.  When replaced in the lead, the term should be for "Category B services" since the term "Category 2 services" was deprecated some years back. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truly bizarre 

message: We have one editor who would have been blocked for edit warring had their IP remained stable and one "new" editor reverting the IP. Page protected for three days. IP, you need to discuss further and stop reverting. --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And the IP is now blocked as they are socking. --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on protection 

message: I'm just wondering if the person in question went away or they're still waiting at the sidelines. FiReSTaRT (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection still necessary? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BBC Canada. 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  tag to http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4951353
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220233335/http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2010/r101022.htm to http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2010/r101022.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified