Talk:BBC Canada

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Television Low‑importance Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Do whatever you want.  █ EMARSEE 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello

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)[reply

]

@User:Etamni: Agreed on all counts. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, I've dropped a more fuller explanation of Category 2 into the body, referring to the licence statement cited. As you say, Category B is a notable term that describes something covering many shows, so it does have merit discussing it the body. Again, it really all comes down to : what would a typical reader who wanted to look at this article expect? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To extensively explain, no. To explain at all, obviously yes, it is necessary. 186.9.135.202 (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The GateKeeper07 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)[reply

]

I'd like to have the category added back to the lead as this is common practice for articles of this type on Wikipedia. Anyone object? Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We have one editor who would have been blocked for

And the IP is now blocked as they are socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]