![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4951353When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4951353When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)